' The facts relevant for the disposal of this case are that Akbar All respondent by way of oral sale obtained 43 Kanals 10 Marlas and 2 Kanals of land vide Mutations Nos.260 and 263. One Muhammad Iqbal son of Niaz Ahmad made an application to the DC/Collector stating therein that the above stated land was acquired by his father and uncle (respondent) but the petitioner with the collusion of the field staff managed to get this land in his name. A report was called for and it transpired that the share of the respondent was 3086/3744 and his brother Faiz Ahmad's share was 658/3744 but during the preparation of Register of Rights for the year 1963, the position was revers,ed and vide Mutations Nos.261 and 263 Akbar All respondent got 7 Kanals 10 Marlas land and Faiz Ahmad got 30 Kanals 18 Marlas. However, during preparation of Register of Rights for the year 1963-64 the above position was again changed and Faiz Ahmad son of Noora was shown owner of 36 Kanals 15 Marlas and Akbar All son of Noora was shown owner of 1 Kanal 13 Marlas, and these entries subsisted up to 1983-84. Further, the respondent had neither sold nor entered into any exchange of land. It was Faiz Ahmad who sold out the entire land. The District Collector on 6-6-1988 allowed the review of the subsequent Mutations Nos.295, 486, 531, 561 etc. And correction of Register of Rights. Being aggrieved by the said order the petitioner went in appeal before the Commissioner, with the prayer that the District Collector had illegally ordered to change the long- standing entries but the Commissioner dismissed his appeal. Hence this revision petition under section 164 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in the Record of Rights for the year 1963- 64, the shares of Faiz Ahmad and Akbar All were entered differently and were repeated in several subsequent Records of Rights. This Faiz Ahmad later sold some land to Nazar Muhammad and also to Muhammad Sharif. All these alienations of land were reflected in the Records of Rights. On 23-12- 1986, the respondent applied for correction of revenue record, after a long delay and many transactions, which was allowed by the Collector vide his order dated 6-6-1988. The petitioner's appeal was dismissed by the Commissioner on 17-8-1989. Section 45 of the Land Revenue Act places restrictions on variations and the only cours,e open to the petitioner was to prefer a suit under section 53 thereof for correction of the entry in dispute. The Collector/Deputy Commissioner had acted beyond his jurisdiction as the Civil Court was the only forum. Valuable rights had been acquired by bona fide purchasers, through Mutations Nos.261, 263, 295, 486, 487, 489, 490, 531, 532, 533 and 561. The petitioner had not even preferred an application for condonation of the delay. It was prayed that the revision petition may be accepted.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent maintained in rebuttal that the petitioner had exhausted all other remedies. He had taken recours,e the Civil Court where his suit was dismissed. The buyers, of land should have been vigilant while purchasing the land. The scope of the revision was rather limited and no irregularity or illegality was committed by the Courts below. The petition was therefore liable to be dismissed. PLD 1979 Rev. 28 and 1976 SCM R 26 were relied upon by the learned counsel.
4. I have considered the arguments and perused the case record. The authorities cited by the learned counsel for respondent are not relevant to his contention; the firs,t relates to a tenancy suit whereas 1976 SCM R 26 interprets section 164 of the Land Revenue Act as confering unrestricted powers, of revision on the Board of Revenue. However, under section 45(a) of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, entries in the Record of Rights can be varied in accordance with the facts proved or admitted to have occurred. In the present case it is admitted that the shares of both the borthers, i,e, Akbar All and Faiz Ahmad were transposed in the Record of Rights 1963-64. Akbar All's share of 3086/3744 went to Faiz Ahmad while latter's share of 658/3744 was given to the former erroneously by the Patwari. As such it was a clerical mistake which can be corrected at any time as it does not confer any right or acquire any sanctity by repeated repetitions in the Record of Rights; it remains a clerical error and has to be treated as such upon discovery. This fact was also duly proved before the Deputy Commissioner/Collector who after hearing the parties ordered the correction of the record which is in accordance with the law and para. 7.30 of Land Records Manual. The Collector's order was upheld by the Commissioner for similar reasons. The suit for the correction of entries in the record contemplated by section 53 ibid, is a permissive provision but not a mandatory one; its purpose and intent, inter alia, is to provide forum for relief to an aggrieved pers,on when his prayer is refused by the Revenue Authorities for correction of an entry in the Record of Rights etc. It does not oust the jurisdiction of Revenue Officers, and Courts. I, therefore, do not see any reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts below and the revision petition is accordingly dismissed.