' The facts of the case as narrated in the impugned order are that out of Khasra No,111 (5 Kanals 14 Marlas), land measuring 4 Kanals 4 Marlas situated in village Pindi Rajputan, Tehsil Lahore Cantt.
(was) acquired by the Provincial Government in the year 1967 for the construction of road .Th the Township Scheme and mutation No,2717 was sanctioned on 27-5-1978.
The owneRs, of Khasra No,111 sold one Kanal of land to Hassan Abbas petitioner vide registered sale-deed for rs:19,500 which was incorporated vide mutation No,2600 numbered as Ithasra No,111/2. Mst. Ishrat Jabeen also purchased one Kanal of land vide a registered sale deed which was incorporated vide mutation No,2602 dated 31-8-1976. Ishrat Jabeen again purchased one Kanal of land vide another registered sale deed and this sale was also incorporated vide mutation No,2603 dated 31-8-1976. The road had been completed on 25-121969. Ishrat Jabeen respondent took the possession of 2 Kanals of land and constructed house/school there. Hassan Abbas either did not take or was not put in possession of the land purchased by him.
2. Hassan Abbas went on filing miscellaneous applications to the Revenue Authorities. His latest application regarding the demarcation of the site and for giving him Khasra No,111/2 was rejected by the DC/Collector on 24-1-1991. That order was unsuccessfully challenged in. Appeal before the Additional Commissioner (Consoldiation), Lahore Division. Hence this revision petition under section 164 of Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted in the written arguments, that the P.W.D. Had acquired an area of 67 Kanals 10 Marlas situated in the revenue estate of Pindi Rajputan including Khasra No,111 (5K-14M) (Ghair Mumkin brick kiln) for the construction of Lahore Township Link Road, vide Notification No,LA/363/12, dated 15-2-1967. The project was completed on 25-12-1969 and an area of 4K-4M was covered leaving an area of 0-18M towards the west of the road and 12 Marlas on its east. Tatimma Shajra was accordingly prepared allocating Survey No,111/1 to the portion of the metalled road (4K-4M), 111/2 to the portion on the west (0-18M) and 111/3 to the east (0-12M).
Compansation was paid for 4K-4M i.e. For Khasra No,111/1 (4K-4M). However this Khasra number continued to be disposed of through sales irrespective of the acquisition proceedings. Vide Mutation No,2557, dated 21-5-1976 by way of implementation of decree this Khasra number was mutated in the name of one Muhammad Khan son of Qaim Din as vendee in the column of cultivation on behalf of Anwar Ali Shah son of Walayat Ali Shah as vendor. Vide Mutation No, 2558 dated 29-1-1975 under registered sale-deed this fieled number measuring 5 Kanals 14 Marlas was transferred in the names of Muhammad Youths 2/3, Shaukat Ali, Iftikhar Ali in equal shares 1/3, sons of Muhammad Sharif. Vide Mutation No,2600, dated 16-6-1976 the petitioner' Hassan Abbas purchased an area of 1 Kanal through registered sale-deed dated 26-5-1976 from Muhammad Younis. Vide mutations Nos.2602 and 2603 dated 31-8-1976 the respondent purchased an area of 2 Kanals through two registered sale deeds dated 28-5-1976.
4. The field staff on the back of foil of Mutation No,2600 as well as on counter foil prepared the Tatimmas indicating different sales with entry of their dimensions in the field book thus prepared as below:-{{TABLE}}- {{TABLE}} Khasra No, Khasra No, in Tatimma. Area.
111 111/ (5K-14M) (1K-4M)
111/2 Vendee Hassan Abbas (1K-OM) Petitioner).
111/3 (0K-8M)
111/4 (0K-3M)
111/5 (Vendee Ishrat Jabeen (2K-OM) Respondent).
Total: 5K-15M ' Thus the whole of this Khasra number was sold although 1K-10M was only available for sale.
5. Continuing the learned counsel submitted that vide Mutation No,2717 dated 27-5-1978 the aforesaid acquisition proceedings based on mutations. Nos.2557, 2558 and 2600 . Were incorporated in the revenue record simultaneously retaining the aforesid Tatimmas intact in such a planner that in the previous column 111/1 2K-4M. 111/3 OK-8M. 111/4 OK-3M, total 2 Kanals 15 Marlas meant for substitution were recorded and thus the new entry made in the name of the Provincial Government in the following form:-- 111/1 1K-12M, 111/3 OK-8M, 111/4 OK-3M Total: 2K-3M ' The learned counsel maintained that the field staff had not followed the entries obtaining at the time of acquisition and had not prepared the correct Tatimmas which resulted in sales of this area to different peRs,ons indicated by different Tatimmas contrary to the position at the spot being double 'sales. The Appellate Court had failed to take notice of the fact that the respondent had been occupying area in contiguous Khasra Nos.103, 104 and 111 and had also committed serious irregularites in getting sanctioned mutations Nos.2600, 2602, 2603 and 2717 and that Tatimmas were prepared against acquisition. Yet the Revenue Authorities did not take any remedial measures for the removal of these irregularities. The learned Collector vide his order dated 24-1- 1991 had also similarly failed to search the truth as to how the acquisition took place and the identity of the owner to whom the compensation was paid. The learned counsel emphasized that the Collector should have verified the entries, the registered sale-deeds, and then corrected the revenue records by way of `Seht ' Indraj'. He prayed that the revision petition may be accepted by setting aside the impugned mutations.
6. The learned counsel for the respondent in the written agreements submitted that the petitioner had purchased land measuring 1 Kanal Survey No,111/2, vide Mutation No,2600, dated 16-6-1976 and Tatimma was drawn on it by the revenue staff. The respondent also purchased land measuring 2 Kanals through two different sale-deeds dated 28-5-1976, Survey No,111/5, and Mutations Nos.2602 and 2603, dated 31-8-1976 were sanctioned. The building plan was sanctioned by the Municipal Corporation and the L.DA. And the respondent constructed a house and school known as Jinnah Foundation High, School for Girls and Inter College. The petitioner's various demarcation' applications were rejected by the Collector's order dated 21-1-1980 which was never challenged and thus had attained finality. The petitioner's civil suit was also dismissed on 26-11-1979. His Police case was also rejected by the local Police. However, after the lapse of about eight yeaRs, the petitioner preferred another application for demarcation which was filed on 27-8-1989 but instead of tiling an appeal he brought another application for demarcation dated 23-7-1990 which was rejected by the DC/Collector on 24-1-1991. His appeal was also dismissed by the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) vide his impugned order. The revision petition before the Additional Commissioner was totally against the basic applications because the petitioner had lost his case in all the forums and the respondent is running her School and College in the land in dispute for the last 16 yeaRs, It was prayed that the revision petition may be dismissed.
7. I have considered the arguments and peRs,used the case record. The case, to say the least, involves complicated questions of law and facts which cannot be sorted out by revenue authorities in summary proceedings such as mutation/Seht record. The parties have purchased the land in dispute through registered sale-deeds which have been duly reflected in the revenue record. Some of the land in dispute had been acquired by the Government for construction of road for which compensation was duly paid but continued to be disposed of by several peRs,ons. It was also subject of a pre-emption decree. The petitioner did not take possession of the land at the time of its purchase. On the other hand, the respondent is in possession and running her School/College for the last 16 yeaRs, The petitioner's application was dismissed by the DC/Collector after carrying out demarcation at the spot and this order was never challenged by him by way of revision or appeal. The lower Courts have, therefore, rightly declined to give him any relief by way of correction of record through `Scht Intiqa1'. The reasons which weighed with the Collector and the Additional Commissioner in their respective impugned ordeRs, are unexceptionable and do not call for any interference. The revision petition is thus dismissed.
8. The order in this case was reserved and shall be communicated to the parties.