' The facts in brief are that one Muhammad Shaft was owner of agricultural land measuring 39 Kanals and 14 Marlas. He sold his land in favour of Nishan petitioner through registered sale-deed dated 7-4-1980 for a consideration of Rs,90,000. Muhammad Mansha respondent filed a suit for possession through pre-emption on the basis of tenancy under the provision of Paragraph 25, Martial Law Regulation No,115 of 1972. Nishan petitioner contested it. After recording evidence the Assistant Commissioner/Collector, Sadar Sub-Division, Sheikhupura by judgment dated 26-8-1981 decreed the suit in favour of Muhammad Mansha respondent. Nishan petitioner (the vendee) preferred an appeal against the said judgment. It was partly accepted by Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Lahore Division on 28-7-1982 and he observed that in his opinion Muhammad Mansha respondent could only prove his tenancy over Khasra No,22/2 measuring 3K- 16M and could not prove his tenancy over the rest of the land and in consequence decreed the suit of Muhammad Mansha respondent to the extent of 3K-16M and set aside the judgment of the learned A.C. In respect of the rest of the land. Muhammad Mansha respondent filed a revision against the judgment of Additional Commissioner (Revenue) in the Board of Revenue. The learned M.B.R. Vide his order dated 29-6-1983 accepted the revision and set aside the order of the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Lahore and restored the order of the A.C. Whereby the suit of Muhammad Mansha respondent was decreed in toto. Hence this writ petition.
2. It is contended that copy of Khasra Girdawari Exh.P.4 shows Muhammad Mansha respondent to be a tenant of 3K-16M of land while the rest of the land was cultivated by his father. But the learned A.C., erred in drawing an inference that since Sardar father of Muhammad Mansha was said to be a blind and old man, it could be presumed that he could not himself cultivate the land and instead his son namely, Muhammad Mansha cultivated the suit land. The other ground taken into consideration by the A.C. In holding Muhammad Mansha respondent to be a tenant was that in the suit filed by him against Nishan, the latter had made a statement before the Court that he would not forcibly eject him from the suit land. It is contended that the said undertaking on the part of the petitioner could not be interpreted to mean that he had accepted him as a tenant in respect of the entire suit land without confronting him with the said statement. It is next submitted that it was not shown that the civil suit pertained to the entire land in dispute. It is further contended that the learned Additional Commissioner (Rev.) had observed that a bare reading of Khasra Girdawari showed cultivation of Kila No,22/2 Square No,44 only in the name of Muhammad Mansha respondent while "Kashat Badastoor" meant the cultivation of previous tenant i,e, Sardar. But the learned Member, Board of Revenue ignored it. He erred in discarding the Khasra Girdawari Exh.P.4 on the ground that the same was not in accordance with the direction as contained in the Land Record Manual and observed that those appeared to have been made with male fide and malacious intention. If that was so, he could have, at best, remanded the case to the A.C. For a detailed inquiry but could not himself give a positive finding about the nature and import of those entries.
3. Be that as it may, the findings of Member, Board of Revenue have diverted the controversy to an altogether different direction. He relied upon the instructions contained in Chapter IX of the Land Records Manual and further proceeded to observe that certain entries in the Khasra Girdawari were unwarranted and against the directions contained in the said Manual. He thus adopted a venue to which the parties were never confronted during the trial. A perusal of the record shows that the parties are at variance on numerous points. The findings could not neither exceed the points at issue nor any evidence could be implied or imported in drawing the conclusion thereon.
The documents on record were to be read as they were and could not be interpreted in a manner prejudicial to the rights of the parties. The correction of revenue record and action against the unwarranted contents could be taken only in accordance with the procedure laid down for it. The points raised by the M.B.R. Involved the questions of law as well as facts and required through examination. The disposal of these points by the M.B.R. Deprived the parties of an opportunity of sorting out the relevant matters and expressing their respective contentions. These matters could be properly thrashed out at the trial stage only. That course would have also provided a right of appeal to the parties against any finding given in that behalf. The impugned order is, therefore, not sustainable in law.
' As a result of the above, the writ petition is accepted and the impugned judgment and decrees dated 26-8-1981 and 29-6-1983 respectively passed by the Collector and the Member, Board of Revenue are declared to be unlawful and without any legal effect and are set aside and the case is remanded to the Assistant Commissioner/Collector Saddar Sub-Division Sheikhupura for a fresh decision. The parties shall be afforded an opportunity of adducing evidence on the points raised by the M.B.R. In his impugned order dated 29-6-1983 and the suit shall then be decided in accordance with law.
' In view of the above position the parties are left to bear their own costs.