In this revision petition a concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the Courts below that the petitioner was not the absolute and exclusive owner of the entire land as alleged in the plaint has been called in question.
2. The land in dispute was allotted by the Border Area Committee under Paragraph 55-A of Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme, 1956 known as Jauridar Scheme to the petitioner and his brother Hashmat Ali jointly which is evidenced by Exh.D.l, copy of the allotment order passed by the Committee in the year 1956. The petitioner on 7-12-1965 got Mutation No.514 sanctioned in his favour for conferment/transfer of proprietary rights in the entire land in his own name exclusively, in the absence of his brother Hashmat Ali respondent No.l. On coming to know that the said mutation had been sanctioned in favour of the petitioner exclusively behind his back Hashmat Ali made an application before the Border Area Committee seeking review of the same and conferment of proprietary rights jointly in favour of both the allottees being Jauridars. This application was rejected on 13-7-1968 (Exh.P.5). It appears that this order was passed without consulting the record as it was observed that the original allotment of land was made exclusively in favour of the present petitioner and it was on this mistaken assumption that the said application was rejected. However, subsequently when the Border Area Committee realized the mistake apparent on the face of the record it passed an order on 14-4-1971 that being co-sharer in the original allotment Hashmat Ali brother of the petitioner was also entitled to conferment of proprietary rights and passed an order on the said date for review of Mutation No.514 and sanction of fresh mutation in favour of both the brothers. The implementation of this order was directed through order dated 15-4-1971 for making correction in the Revenue Record by way of review of Mutation No.514. The petitioner it appears in the meantime initiated proceedings for ejectment of his brother Hashmat Ali from the land in dispute on the basis of proprietary rights conferred on him through Mutation No.514. .
3. The petitioner filed suit for declaration that he was absolute and exclusive owner of land in pursuance of Mutation No.514 and prayed for passing decree for permanent injunction as a consequential relief to restrain the respondent Hashmat Ali to interfere in his ownership rights. The suit was contested by the respondent Hashmat Ali. The two Courts below after careful and elaborate appraisal of evidence came to the conclusion that the petitioner could not claim to be the exclusive and absolute owner of the entire land as his brother Hashmat Ali was also the allottee of the land as Jauridar, therefore, both were entitled to conferment of proprietary rights. Mutation No.514 sanctioned in favour of the petitioner exclusively was held to be illegal, therefore, the suit was dismissed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner attempted to argue that in the presence of order dated 13-7- 1968 (Exh.P.5) passed by the Border Area Committee dismissing respondent's application seeking review of Mutation No.514 in which it was held that he was not the allottee of the land as Jauridar with the petitioner, orders dated 14-4-1971 and 15-4-1971 for review of the said mutation and grant of proprietary rights to the extent of half share to respondent jointly with the petitioner were void and without jurisdiction and the same did not have the effect of affecting adversely the rights of the petitioner in the land as exclusive owner.
5. 1 am afraid in my view the argument is plainly unsound. Exhs.DA and D.2 are the documents which clearly establish that under Jauridar Scheme the land was allotted jointly to the petitioner and his brother Hashmat Ali in the year 1956. Learned counsel for the petitioner when questioned could not deny this fact, Mutation No.5114 was sanctioned in favour of the petitioner in the absence of Hashmat Ali and behind his back. His case was that due to war which broke up in September 1965 he had shifted to a far-flung area and taking advantage of his absence the petitioner got the said mutation sanctioned for conferment of proprietary rights exclusively in his own name for the entire land by concealment of true factual position regarding joint allotment in favour of both the parties from the authorities. Order dated 13-7-1968 was passed by the Border Area Committee on the assumption as if the petitioner was the only allottee of the land and it appears that the Border Area Committee was not properly advised by the field staff and the record was not consulted and considered. The factual assumption that the petitioner was the exclusive allottee of the land was not correct. The said order on that score was a nullity and could be ignored by the Border Area Committee and correct order after consultation of the record could be made as every authority is vested with inherent power to undo an act or order passed on the basis of incorrect assumptions and obtained through concealment of true facts. Orders dated 14-4-1971 and 15-4-1971 for review of Mutation No.514 passed by the Border Area Committee on the basis of original allotment for conferment of proprietary rights to both the parties in equal share, therefore, was perfectly in accordance with law and the rights of the parties flowing from the original allotment. It may be mentioned that under Jauridar Scheme land could not be allotted to one person and no allotment of land could be made in favour of less than two persons.
6. The two Courts below have not committed any material irregularity and illegality in dismissing the suit of the petitioner, based on concurrent findings of facts which have not been shown to have suffered from misreading, misconstruction or non-reading of any material piece of evidence. The revision petition fails which is accordingly dismissed in limine. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.