' This revision petition is directed against the order dated 29-10-1992 passed by learned Civil Judge, Mianwali, whereby, suit of the respondent/plaintiff Muhammad Hassan was decreed. An appeal was filed by the petitioner/defendant which was also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Mianwali on 20-9-1995. Hence this revision petition.
2. The brief facts are that land measuring 155 Kanals and 16 Marlas situated in village Dhalla Azmat Wala Tehsil Isakhel, District Mianwali falling in Khata No,208/209 was owned by Rehman and Ramzan sons of Usman in equal shares. Rehman aforementioned died and was succeeded by his two widows namely Mst. Jewai and Ameeran who inherited from his estate to the extent of 1/8th share, whereas, his sons Muhammad Hassan (Plaintiff) and Muhammad Aslam inherited 7/8th share vide inheritance No,1729 sanctioned on 23-9-1969. As such, Muhammad Hassan respondent/plaintiff became owner of 34 Kanals and 4 Marlas in the joint 'Khata'. He later on gifted 12 Kanals and 4 Marlas of land to his mother vide mutation No,1834 dated 26-9-1972 and was left with the remaining land measuring about 22 Kanals. However, in the Register Haqdaran for the year 1972-73, his name was omitted as co-sharer and as such, was not shown to be an owner. He moved the Revenue Authorities for the correction of mistake in omitting his name from the record of rights for which 'Fard Badar' (Exh.D2) was issued showing that after gifting the land measuring 12 Kanals and 4 Marlas to his mother Mst. Jewai, he was left with 21 Kanals and 18 Marlas of land and that the same be corrected. This 'Fard' was allowed to be implemented vide order dited 26-3-1975 made by the concerned Revenue Officer. However, nothing was done in pursuance of the 'Fard Badar' for which the petitioner moved the Revenue Courts ending into a revision before the Member of Board of Revenue which too was dismissed. He, thereupon, filed a suit for declaration challenging the order of the Revenue Authorities and claiming to be an owner of 21 Kanals and 16 Marlas at the time of acquisition of land by the respondents for the construction of Chashma Barrage. The learned trial Court after taking into consideration oral as well as documentary evidence brought on record, decreed the suit. An appeal was filed by the Province of Punjab through the Collector, Mianwali which was also dismissed as stated above and the order of the trial Court was confirmed.
3. In this revisions petition, it is contended that the civil Court had no jurisdiction to grant the decree; that the respondent was not owner of the land at the time of acquisition of the land; that the respondent has not right to claim any alternate land as a displaced person because the land as claimed by him was not acquired.
4. The revision petition was resisted on the ground that it is hopelessly time barred as having been filed after the lapse of about one year; that both the Courts below had given concurrent findings on the question of fact regarding the ownership of land in question in favour of the respondent/plaintiff and as such, there was very limited scope of interference in revision petition; that the revenue official, by issuing a correction slip (Fard Badar) had admitted that the entry in Jamabandi for the year 1972-73 was incorrect and that the entries in the relevant mutation were also wrongly made. Finally, it was claimed that the suit was rightly decreed.
5. I have considered the above submissions. The point of limitation in this revision petition needs appreciation. The impugned judgment of the learned appellate Court was delivered on 20-9-1995 whereas, this revision petition was filed on 28-10-1996 almost after the lapse of more than one year.
An application (C.M.No,2/96) was filed alongwith revision petition for condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act. It was contended in the aforesaid application that the matter was referred to the Solicitor, Government of the Punjab for seeking legal opinion which consumed sufficiently long time and ultimately it was advised that it was not a fit case for filing the revision petition. However, the administrative department made a fresh reference to the law department through the Advocate-General, Punjab for filing the revision petition and ultimately, the opinion was revised thereby directing the Government to file the revision petition on 6-10-1996, whereupon, the present revision petition was filed on 28--10-1996. It is, therefore, contended that since movements of files in the Government departments are very tardy and slow, therefore, technicalities interposing the delivery of impugned judgment and the filing of the revision petition resulted into the aforementioned delay of about one year which was allegedly liable to be condoned in the given situation.
6. I have taken into consideration the grounds taken in the petition for condoning the delay and find them least convincing. The Government has an effective machinery to deal with such situation. The departments are manned by senior officers and it is expected that proper attention would be paid to the matters coming up before them in which the time limit is placed by law for their disposal. In such a situation, it cannot be presumed that the department concerned would not take proper care and attention to observe the time limit indicated by law. The sweeping statement that the limitation of sixty days in filing this revision petition should be stretched over to one year would be based on strong reasons and grounds for condonation. Hence, in such case, each day of delay should be explained in the petition. However, no such detail is given either in the petition for condonation of delay nor any material has been placed on record to show that the department was prevented by the factors beyond its control to bypass the limitation period and in such a situation, it appears that the delay is not only indolent but contumacious. It, therefore, follows that the department has failed to advance any convincing reasons for condoning the delay of over one year in filing this revision petition which otherwise is hopelessly time barred and is liable to be dismissed on that very ground.
7. Even on merits, the petitioners have no case and have entangled the respondents unnecessarily in a protracted litigation. According to their own witnesses and record, the respondent remained owner of 21 Kanals and 16 Marlas of land when the land was acquired. In this respect, both oral and documentary evidence support the case of the respondent/plaintiff. In brief, reference to the statement of P. W.1 Muhammad Iqbal Khan, Patwari will show that the respondent/plaintiff was the owner of 21 Kanals and 18 Marlas when the land was acquired from him. He also referred to the correction slip (Fard Badar) but the same was not acted upon for no reasons to be advanced by the revenue officials. Out of documentary evidence, reference to Fard Badar (Exh.P8) would make out abundantly clear that it was mistake in recording the entires in Jamabandi for the year 1972-73 which was directed to be corrected by showing that the respondent/plaintiff Muhammad Hassan was owner of 21 Kanals and 18 Marlas of land. Even in the Register Haqdaran for the year 1972-73, the petitioner was ultimately shown to be the owner of 21 Kanals and 18 Marlas as would be clear from the bottom note recorded on the aforesaid document with a correction recorded in column No,10 by Muhammad Ziaullah Khan, Patwari. Similarly the Register Haqdaran for the year 1968-69 (Exh.P-1) would show that Rehman i.e, predecessor-in-interest of the present plaintiff owned 77 Kanals and 18 Marlas, out of which the respondent/plaintiff inherited equally with his brother Muhammad Aslam and got a share of 34 Kanals and 4 Marlas in the joint 'Khata'. As such, the learned Courts below rightly concurred with each other that the respondent/plaintiff was the owner of 21 Kanals and 16 Marlas at the time of acquisition of his land for Chashma Barrage.
8. The revision petition has no merit which is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.