SHAIKH ABDUR RAZZAQ, J.~ Instant Constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 is directed against the orders dated 30.6.1997 and 22.8.1982 passed by the Member Board of Revenue (Revenue) Punjab, Lahore (respondent No. 1) and Additional Commissioner (Revenue) (respondent No. 2), whereby the suit filed by Anwar Baig son of Khan Baig (respondent No. 4) was decreed against the petitioner.
2. Briefly stated the facts are that Mst. Malik Bibi was owner of land measuring 14 kanals, 12 marlas bearing Khasra No. 1492(old)/1571 (new) situated in village Jasial Tehsil Talagang. She sold the said land to Fateh Khan (petitioner) for a sum of Rs. 6500/- vide Mutation No. 300, dated 21.12.1974.
Anwar Baig filed a suit in the Court of A.C./Collector Talagang, for pre-emption claiming first right of pre-emption, as a tenant of the land, on the basis of para 5(3)(d) of the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972. Mst. Ghulam Fatima and Nazir Hussain also filed a similar suit. Mst. Ghulam Fatima also submitted an application dated 8.4.1975 to the Revenue Officer, alleging that Anwar Baig was being wrongly shown as tenant over the suit land in the khasra girdawri and the said entries be corrected. The Settlement Officer/Collector vide order dated 24.3.1977 held that entire area of Khasra No. 1492 was in cultivating possession of Budha and Sher Zaman 2/3rd share and Zaida Khan 1/3rd share as tenants-at-will under Resham Khan mortgagee, since Rabi 1973. He thus ordered that entries in the khasra girdawri be corrected accordingly. However, the pre-emption suit of Mst. Ghulam Fatima and Nazir Hussain was dismissed on 5.5.1977 and they never challenged this decision. The pre-emption suit of Anwar Baig was also dismissed by the A.C./Collector Talagang on 20.3.1980. Respondent No. 4 filed an appeal before the Additional Commissioner (Revenue) who accepted the same vide judgment dated 7.7.1981 and remanded the case to Assistant Commissioner/Collector Talagang, who again dismissed the suit vide judgment dated 26.1.1982.
Anwar Baig against filed an appeal before the Additional Commissioner (Revenue) Rawalpindi Division, Rawalpindi, who accepted the same vide judgment dated 22.8.1982 and decreed the suit.
Against this order dated 22.8.1982. Fateh Khan petitioner filed a revision petition before the Member Board of Revenue who accepted the same vide order dated 20.7.1983 and dismissed the suit.
Against this order dated 20.7.1983, Anwar Baig '(respondent No. 4) filed W.P. No. 337/83 which was accepted vide order dated. 19.2.1989 and the matter was remanded to the Member Board of Revenue who vide order dated 30.6.1997 rejected the revision and restoring order dated 22.8.1982 decreed the suit. Hence the instant writ petition.
3.. Arguments have been heard and record perused.
4. it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that disputed transaction took place on 21 >i2.1.974, which was pre-empted by respondent No. 4 on the basis of tenancy, that this plea of respondent No. 4 that he was a tenant over the suit land stands rebutted by the order of Revenue Officer dated 24.3.1977, whereby he held that suit land was coming in possession of Sher Zaman, Budha and Zaida Khan being tenants-at-will of Resham Khan since Rabi 1973, that this order of Revenue Officer dated 24.3.1977 was never challenged by respondent No. 4 Anwar Baig as such holds the field till today, that a pre-emptor has to prove his superior right of pre-emption at the time of sale, at the time of filing suit as well as at the time of decree, that Budha, Sher Zaman and Zaida Khan have been shown as tenants-at-will of Resham Khan, since Rabi 1973 and such correction of entries in the khasra girdawri has been ordered as evinced in order dated 24.3.1977, so how respondent No. 4 could claim his right of pre-emption over the land involved in this transaction which took place on 21. 12.1974. He thus submitted that both the Courts below have not passed the impugned orders in accordance with law and the same are liable to set aside.
5. Conversely, it is submitted by learned counsel for respondent No. 4 that as per revenue record.
Anwar Baig has been coming a tenant over the suit land since 1973, as such his right of pre- emption stood covered under para 5(3)(d) of Land Reforms Regulation, 1972. He contended that no change in the revenue record could be made by the Revenue Officer, during the pendency of a preemption suit and relied upon Muhammad Safdar Ali Iqbal v. Sher Muhammad and to others (PLJ 1980 Lahore 646). He thus submitted that order regarding correction of entries passed by Settlement Officer/Collector Talagang dated 24.3.1977 was not justified. He further submitted that order of Assistant Commissioner/Collector Talagang dated 26.1.1982 was based on the order of correction of entries dated 24.3.1977, that order dated 26.1.1982 was set aside by the Additional Commissioner Revenue. Rawalpindi vide his order dated 22.8.1982. He thus submitted that respondent No. 4 has proved his superior right of preemption at all three stages and impugned orders do not suffer from any illegality, and writ petition merits dismissal.
6. Admittedly, the suit land was alienated in favour of Fateh Khan petitioner vide Mutation No. 300, dated 21.12.1974. Anwar Baig (respondent No.4) pre-empted that land on the ground that he was a tenant over the same. As per revenue record available, he has been coming in possession of the same as tenant since 1973. Learned counsel for the petitioner wants to rely upon orders dated 24.3.1977, whereby suit land has been .Shown to be mortgaged with Resham Khan and Sher Zaman, Budha and Zaida Khan have been shown his tenants-at-will. This order was set aside by the Additional Commissioner vide order dated 22.8.1982. Even otherwise it is well-settled law as laid down in PLJ 1980 Lahore 646 ibid, that in cases of pre-emption under Land Reforms Regulation, 1972, after commencement of pre-emption proceedings, the Revenue Officer/Revenue Courts should leave the matter regarding correction of entries in the revenue records to the forums where pre-emption proceedings are going on. Thus even on this Score, the Revenue Officers/Revenue Courts were not competent to make order regarding the correction of entries in the periodical record pertaining to the entries of tenancy of respondent No. 4, who has been incorporated as tenant since 1973.
7. In the light of facts stated above, it is clear that both the impugned order dated 22.8.1982 and 20.6.1997 have been passed in accordance with law. There is no force in this writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed.