' The above revision petitions have been filed against the order dated 16-64988 of the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Gujranwala Division, whereby he maintained the order dated 19-3-1987 of the District Collector, Gujranwala.
' Both the Revision Petitions are being disposed of by a single order, as the subject matter is common.
2. The facts relevant for the disposal of the Revision petitions are that Khasra No, 606 measuring 8K, situated in Village Fatto Mand, Tehsil Gujranwala was owned by one Mst. Dilbar Kaur, an evacuee.
The number of the said Khasra became 837 during Consolidation Operations in 1963-64. According to Major Riaz Ahmad Rashid petitioner, Khasra No,837 was allotted and confirmed in the name of Mst. Batool Begum etc. (pro forma respondents in ROR No, 1407/1988) at S.No, 42 of RL-II, relating to the village in question. The confirmation of this number in the name of Mst. Batool Begum etc. Was given effect to in Jamabandi for the year 1967-68. Mst. Batool Begum etc. Sold away Khasra No, 837 to Muhammad Afzal vide Registered Deed dated 25-4-1968. Mutation No, 506 was sanctioned in this connection on 13-4-1969. Muhammad Afzal, in his turn, sold this very number to Muhammad Aslam vide registered deed dated 14-7-1969.
' This sale was implemented in the Revenue Record vide Mutation No, 642 dated 27-12-1969.
Muhammad Aslam, gifted this piece of land to Maj. Riaz Ahmed Rashid, petitioner No, 1 in ROR No, 1407/1988, vide registered deed dated 22-3-1977. In consequence thereof, Mutation No, 2905 was sanctioned in favour of Major Riaz Ahmed Rashid on 8-6-1977. Respondents 2 and 3 in ROR No, 1407/1988 (Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 in ROR No, 1735/1988) gave an application to the District Collector/Deputy Commissioner, Gujranwala on 19-1-1986 for correction of record in respect of Khasra No, 837, which according to them had been allotted to their father, Fazal Karim against his verified claim. The District Collector obtained a report from the field staff and vide his order dated 19-3-1987, resumed Khasra No, 837 as evacuee piece of land in favour of the Provincial Government. He vide the same order refused to accept the claim of the petitioners, in both the Revision Petitions to the land under reference. The order of the District Collector/Deputy Commissioner, Gujranwala was assailed in appeal before the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Gujranwala Division who upheld the orders of the District Collector vide his order dated 29-3-1987.
3. 1 have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the relevant record.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners (Ghulam Muhammad and Janat Khatoon) in ROR No, 1735/1988 raised the following contentions in support of the case of his clients:-
(i) Khasra No, 837 measuring 8K was the property of the Central Government, according to the Register of Rights for the year 1963-64.
(ii) An area measuring 34K 8M including Khasra No, 837 was allotted to Fazal Karim (Predecessor- in-interest of the Petitioners) against his verified claim at Khata No, 34 of RL-II of the village Fatto Mand. The said area was confirmed in the name of Fazal Karim on 15-8-1967.
(iii) Respondents Nos.1 to 11 got Khasra No, 837 entered in their names in the Register Haqdaran for the year 1967-68, fraudulently in order 10 deprive the petitioners of this land. The above-named respondents sold away the suit land to Muhammad Afzal, Respondent No,12 who sold it to Muhammad Aslam Respondent No,13. Major Riaz Ahmed Rashid Respondent No,14 got this land as a Gift from Muhammad Aslam. As there was something fishy, the disputed Khasra No, changed hands in quick succession.
(v) On the application of the petitioners to the District Collector/Deputy Commissioner, Gujranwala, a report was called for. The Tehsildar and the Girdawar Halqa supported the contentions of the petitioners and recommended correction of Khasra No, 837 in their favour. However, the Deputy Commissioner deprived the petitioners of Khasra No,837 on extraneous grounds. At the same time he (D.C) accepted the stand of the petitioners about the respondents who had procured the entries regarding Khasra No, 837 in their names by fraud and misrepresentation.
(vi) The Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Gujranwala failed to advert to the various grounds raised by the petitioners and had wrongly endorsed the order of the Deputy Commissioner/District Collector.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Major Riaz Ahmed Rashid (in ROR No, 1407/1988) raised the following contentions in rebuttal
(a) Mst. Batool Begum and Mushtaq Hussain etc. (Pro forma Respondents 4 to 9) had 1845 units at their credit. Out of these units 1493 pertained to the garden while 352 units were urban in nature. In 1964 they were allotted the land measuring 41K-14M, comprising a `Bagicha (garden) in village Fatto Mand at No, 28 of RL-II. Against their 352 Urban units, they were allotted land measuring 26K- 11M including Khasra No, 837 at S.No, 42 of RL-II in the same year.
(b) The allotment and confirmation of Khasra No, 837 in the name of Mst. Batool Begum etc. Was duly incorporated in Register of Rights for the year 1967-68.
(c) The transactions in respect of Khasra No, 837 by Mst. Batool Begum to Muhammad Afzal and by Muhammad Afzal to Muhammad Aslam and by Muhammad Aslam to Major Riaz Ahmed Rashid took place through registered deeds and were duly incorporated in the Revenue Record.
(d) The record of rights for the year 1979-80 and 1983-84 contained the name of Major Riaz Ahmed Rashid, petitioner, as owner of the suit land.
(e) The contents of the application made by Ghulam Muhammad and Mst. Janat Khatoon, petitioners in ROR No, 1735/1988 (Respondents 2 and 3 in ROR 1407/88) were incorrect and the Tehsildar made a report on it without hearing the petitioner, Maj. Riaz Ahmed Rashid.
(f) The Settlement Act was repealed in 1974 and Ghulam Muhammad etc. Respondents applied for the cancellation of the disputed Khasra No, from the name of the petitioners on 19-1-1986. The Deputy Commissioner/District Collector, Gujranwala had no jurisdiction to entertain the said application as he was not a Notified Officer under the Evacuee Property Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975.
(g) the original Register RL-H had been lost and there was no material with the Girdawar Halqa to make a report to the effect that Khasra No, 837 was allotted to the predecessor-in-interest of Ghulam Muhammad and Janat Khatoon petitioners.
(h) The order made by the District Collector in view of the prevailing facts and circumstances was void and so was the order made in appeal by the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Gujranwala.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments of the parties and the material available on record. The relevant law has also been examined, ' The petitioners of both the Revision Petitions claimed the suit land on the basis of its alleged allotment and confirmation to their predecessors-interest. It is evident from the copy of the relevant RIB II that Khasra No,837 was confirmed in the name of Mustafa Hussain etc. This number travelled from the original owners to various persons and lastly to Major Riaz Ahmed Rashid, petitioner through Registered Deeds. The sale or gift is registered on the basis of the Revenue Record in respect of ownership, supplied by the executant/owner. Copies of the Revenue Record are obtained from the revenue field staff. The disputed Khasra No, changed many hands but no fraud was detected either by the field staff or by Ghulam Muhammad, respondent in ROR.1404/1988 and petitioner in ROR No, 1735/1988, from 1967 upto the end of 1985. The changes relating to Khasra No,837 continued to be incorporated in the Register of Rights, prepared from time to time but the Patwari Halqa and his superior officials/officers did not find any fault with the same. These facts do support the contentions of Major Riaz Ahmed Rashid, petitioner that the suit land was in fact allotted to Mst. Batool Begum, Mustafa Hussain etc. Both the parties admit that the relevant Register RL-II had been lost had been re-constructed upto Khata No,
34. In the absence of the gen from time to time. The various Registers Haqdaran. Zamin regarding village Fatto Mand support the claim of Major Riaz Ahmed Rashid and not that of Ghulam Muhammad and Mst. Janat Khatoon.
7. The case can be scrutinized from another angle. It is on record that Major Riaz Ahmed Rashid, as owner of Khasra No, 837 applied to the Deputy Commissioner/District Collector, Gujranwala for the ejectment of Barkat Ali, tenant from it. Vide his order dated 31-7-1977 the then Deputy Commissioner, Gujranwala evicted Barkat Ali from Khasra No, 837. The order of the Deputy Commissioner/District Collector, Gujranwala was assailed in the Court of the then Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Lahore Division who maintained the same. The said Barkat Ali challenged the order of the Deputy Commissioner in the Lahore High Court and the Supreme Court of Pakistan but without any success. Major Riaz Ahmed Rashid claimed ownership over Khasra No, 837 all along and none including Ghulam Muhammad objected to it.
8. Ghulam Muhammad had also invoked the civil jurisdiction but had failed.
9. It is a known fact that the Settlement Laws were repealed in 1974 by the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975 and according to the instructions, issued by the Settlemnt and Rehabilitation wing of the Board of Revenue, Punjab, no settled case could be re- opened after the repeal of the Settlement Laws on a miscellaneous application, not connected with the pending proceedings. The allotment and confirmation of suit land as reflected in the record of rights for the year 1977-78 had attained finality and the District Collector Deputy Commissioner, Gujranwala was not competent to touch this matter in the year 1987, after repeal of the Settlement Act. The resumption of evacuee suit land in favour of the Provincial Government by the District Collector Deputy Commissioner, Gujranwala vide his order dated 19-3-1987 had no legal sanction behind it. Thus the said order is void. The impugned order of the Additional Commissioner (Revenue) also falls in the same category.
10. In view of what has been stated in the proceedings paras (6 to 9) 1 have no option but to accept the petition of Major Riaz Ahmed Rashid. The impugned order is set aside. The Revision Petition of Ghulam Muhammad (ROR No, 1735/1988) is dismissed. The suit land shall remain with Major Riaz Ahmed Rashid.