' The facts relevant for the disposal of these cases are that the petitioners claimed to be in cultivating possession of the suit land as tenants which was owned by one Mst. Robina, respondent No,8 but they were not shown as tenants, in khasra girdawari. They applied to the District Collector somewhere in 1986 for the correction of entries in the Register Khasra Girdawari from Rabi 1970 onwards. The District Collector called for report, from the field staff and in the light of the report ordered the correction of Khasra Girdawari on 26-8-1986. Being aggrieved by the said order the respondents Nos.1 to 7 went in appeals before the Additional Commissioner Revenue, Bahawalpur Division who vide his impugned order dated 29-4-1987 accepted the same on the ground that the entries in Register Girdawari have since been incorporated in various Register Haqdaran Zameen but the petitioners kept silent for about 16 years and the respondents Nos.1 to 7 were not impleaded as parties as was the Land Commission which was a necessary party since the said land was surrendered land under Land Reforms. Hence these revision petitions under section 164, Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967.
2. This single order shall dispose of these four revision petitions as the cases are identical and interconnected.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners maintained that the petitioners applied to the Deputy Commissioner/Collector for correction of Revenue record being the sitting tenants. The petitioners were eligible for the allotment of surrendered land. The respondents Nos.1 to 7 applied for being impleaded as parties. Their prayer was refused as they were neither tenants nor landlords and were not aggrieved in any manner. However, their appeal was accepted by the Additional Commissioner on erroneous consideration. They were not party to the proceedings before the Collector and their appeal was thus groundless. The petitioners had been allotted land under the Land Reforms Scheme and by a subsequent order of the Collector and the Additional Commissioner had acted in vacuum as there was no disposal of the resumed land. The petitioners are in possession of this area and therefore the order of the DC/Collector may be restored.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent stated on 28-7-1991 that he would like to have instructions from his clients. He was asked to give written arguments till 1-9-1991 after obtaining instructions, if any. However, he has not complied with this direction and also has not appeared before this Court subsequently.
5. The learned counsel for respondent No,8 supported the case of the petitioners and maintained that the respondents Nos.1 to 7 should have challenged the Collector's order refusing to implead them as parties.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners stated that the petitioners were tenants in crucial harvests and the limitation was not important. He relied upon 1990 M LD 1912 in support of his arguments.
7. I have considered the arguments and perused the case record. The order dated 26-8-1986 of the Collector is obviously a non-speaking order. It consists of six lines containing no reason at all. The learned Collector has not therefore applied his mind to the facts. The petitioners or respondent No,8 did not apply for correction of entries of Khasra girdawari for a period of 16 years and when they did it was obviously direct end at grabbing surrendered land. They have not been able to give any satisfactory explanation of a delay of 16 yeaRs, The fact had been reflected in at least four Records of Rights and without any substantive and cogent grounds it was not open to the Collector to change the long-standing entries in the Record of Rights. Further, the Collector has also referred to the statement of the Patwari recorded by him that the petitioners had been cultivating the land as `tenants-at-will' during this period. If this was so then the Patwari and the supervisory staff have miserably failed for a very long time to reflect the correct position in the Revenue Record and in these circumstances all of them are liable to be proceeded for inefficiency and negligence. The learned Collector did not even take note of that. Therefore, the impugned order dated 29-4-1987 has .Been passed by the Additional Commissioner on correct and valid considerations. The authority quoted by the learned counsel for the petitioners is not applicable to the instant cases as it relates to the ejectment of the tenants under the Punjab Land Reforms (Procedure for Ejectment Suits) Rules, 1977. The revision petitions are thus without any force- and are accordingly dismissed.
However, there shall be no order as to costs.