MUHAMMAD NASEEM CHAUDHRI, J. -- Mansoor Ali Khan petitioner instituted his suit on 23.2.1995 against Jamshed Alam respondent before the learned Civil Judge First Class, Jhang to obtain a decree for the specific performance in respect of an area of 99 kanals and 5 marlas of land being 5/32 share out of 635 kanals and 4 marlas of land situated in Khata No. 344 Mauza Rashid Pur Tehsil and District Jhang on the basis of an agreement of sale dated 30.6.1984 in consideration for an amount of Rs. 1,20,000/-. The contention of the petitioner is that after the receipt of the sale price on 30.6.1984 the possession of the land was transferred to him by the respondent. He maintained that he made the suit property culturable by the dint of his had labour and asked the respondent to get registered the sale-deed who refused in the matter and that hence the suit. The petitioner also prayed for the issuance of perpetual injunction getting the respondent restrained from interfering in his possession on the suit land and from alienating the same to any other person in any form.
2. On 16.5.1995 the petitioner made an application for the appointment of a Local Commissioner to get ascertained his physical possession on the disputed property as according to him the respondent had got entered the fact of self- cultivation of the suit land by him in the Khasra- girdawari after the year 1992 and that for the correction of the Khasra-girdawari he had Filed the petition before the District Collector, Jhang. He maintained that the Local Commissioner could be in a safe position to give his report. This, application was resisted by the respondent. However, the same was accepted and Mr. Ahmad Hussain Dogar, Advocate, Jhang was appointed as the Local Commissioner who visited the spot on 25.9.1995. Jamshed Alam respondent filed an application by asserting the no confidence in the working of the aforesaid Local Commissioner by expressing that the spot was visited on 25.9.1995 at 4.30 p.m. By the Local Commissioner in the car of the petitioner and that the inspection was not made thoroughly. This petition was resisted by the petitioner and after hearing the parties the same was dismissed with the reasoning that the report had been prepared and that there was no justification for its acceptance. A revision petition was filed by Jamshed Alam respondent which was contested by the petitioner, it was accepted by the learned Additional District Judge. Consequently the Local Commissioner was changed. Feeling aggrieved Mansoor Ali Khan petitioner-plaintiff has filed this writ petition wherein he has voiced the grievance that through the passing of the impugned order dated 17.11.1996 his Constitutional right has been violated especially when the earlier Local Commissioner had already prepared his report. This writ petition has been resisted by Jamshed Alam respondent. Although the learned Civil Judge and learned Additional District Judge, Jhang are respondents Nos. 2 and 3 yet they have not appeared inspite of their service and obviously they are not interested in the result of this writ petition.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record before me. Learned counsel for the petitioner laid the emphasis that the site was inspected by the Local Commissioner and that there was no justification to change him especially when he had prepared his report. On the contrary learned counsel for the respondent argued that with respect to the possession on the agricultural land the Khasra-girdawari has to play the legal role, that the determination of the possession of a party is within the jurisdiction of the Patwari of the estate who has to prepare the Khasra-girdwari and that the Civil Court is not competent to appoint the Local Commissioner to determine the possession of a party on the agricultural land situated in joint Khata and particularly of an area of 99 kanals and 5 marlas being 5/32 share out of 635 kanals and 4 marlas of land, in my view the reasoning adopted by the learned counsel for the respondent has to prevail. The law of the land is that the possession of the parties is incorporated in the register of Khasra-girdawari which is maintained under Section 41 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967 which pertains to the maintenance of periodical records. Subsection (3) of the said Section 41 provides: "For the preparation of periodical records, the Collector shall cause to be maintained by Patwari of each estate Register of Mutations in the prescribed form and other prescribed Registers, if any". The Register of Harvest Inspection (Khasra-girdawari) is one of the other prescribed registers mentioned in the aforesaid Section 41(3) of the Land Revenue Act, 1967. 1 is a matter of common knowledge that the Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore has fully confirmed the inclusion of register of Khasra-girdawari as one of the "other registers" to be kept by the Patwari of the estate for the purpose of the preparation of Annual Records under Section 41 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967.
According to para 350 of the Punjab Land Administration Manual the object of Harvest Inspection (Khasra-girdawari) is to collect the accurate information regarding crops, changes in rights, rents and possession of land and amendments required in the village map. Section 42 of the Land Revenue Act. 1967 has to be referred at this stage which prescribes the procedure for making of that part of the record which relates to land-owners and makes it obligatory on persons acquiring interests of this type to report the fact to Patwari who is then required to make an entry in his register of mutations relating to it and also to report acquisition of any such interests he has reasons to believe to have taken place and to put it up to a Revenue Officer for passing orders under Section 42(6) of the Act after inquiring into the correctness of the transaction. Section 43(b) of the Land Revenue Act, 1967 provides that acquisition of any interest in the land other than a right referred to in Section 42 has to be entered in the register of mutations. This Section prohibits the Patwari from making the entries m Khasra-girdawari which are disputed acquisitions of interests in land. Section 45 of the Land Revenue Act provides that even if Patwari can make the entries of any type i.e. Correct, incorrect or doubtful; such an entry in the Khasra-girdawari cannot be made by him unless found to be undisputed in accordance with the facts proved or admitted to have been occurred or agreed to by all the parties. It is because of this that Land Administration Manual in para 350 has prohibited the Patwari from making the entries in Khasra-girdawari which he is prohibited from entering in the record-of- right. Technically 'Jamabandis' are prepared from the standing entries in the register of Harvest Inspection (Khasra-girdawari) and mutation register.
Since the possession on the agricultural land is to be recorded by a Patwari and can be corrected b) the District Collector, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to get ascertained the possession of an agricultural land through the agency of the Local commissioner in view of the exclusion of the jurisdiction of Civil Court under Section 172 of the Land Revenue Act as the aforesaid type of matter is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the revenue heirarchy. The Register of Harvest Inspector (Khasra-girdawari) cannot be interfered with by the Civil Court and particularly in the instant dispute between the aforesaid parties the matter is also pending before the District Collector Jhang who is competent to give his verdict. If the order of the learned lower Courts with respect to the appointment of Local Commissioners is affirmed, there would be administrative chaos resulting in the judicial anarchy in the revenue heirarchy. It is the duty of the Revenue Officers to see that entries about the possession are made correctly on the basis of the facts admitted or proved. The Local Commissioner appointed by the learned Civil Judge finds no mention in I the Land Revenue Act, 1967. There are watertight compartments of jurisdiction which have to be kept in mind to set the law in motion. The learned Civil Court has no jurisdiction to get determined the possession of the petitioner-plaintiff on the agricultural suit property through the agency of the Local Commissioner. Under the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court it is expressed that the initial order passed by the learned Civil Judge regarding the appointment of Local Commissioner to get determined the possession of the petitioner on the agricultural land is without jurisdiction and thus coram non judice. It is, accordingly, held that no Constitutional right of the petitioner-plaintiff has been violated and infringed.
4. With my aforesaid reasoning, in consequence, this writ petition is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their on costs.