1. ' One Hussain son of Bahawal transferred by exchange land measuring 4 Kanals, 8'Marlas in favour of the petitioners by way of a mutation bearing No,1354. This mutation was entered on 13-9-1955 and attested by the Revenue Officer on 25-9-1955. On the same dates mutation No,1352 was entered and attested whereby the said Hussain transferred by exchange 2 Kanals, 19 Marlas of land in favour of the respondents. It may be noted here that both the transfers were effected in the column of possession of a joint Khata. The land transferred in favour of the petitioners bore Khasra No,5225/2265 while the land transferred to the respondents bore Khasra No,5224/2265. Mutation No,1354 in favour of the petitioners was incorporated in the Revenue Record and the land acquired by them was recorded in their possession in register Haqdaran Zamin for the year 196061. Some how or the other in the register Haqdaran Zamin for the year 1968-69 both the Khasra No,5224/2265 (subject-matter of mutation No,1352 measuring 2 Kanals, 19 Marlas) and Khasra No,5225/2265 (subject-matter of mutation No,1354 measuring 4 Kanals, 8 Marlas) came to be recorded to be in possession of the respondents as transferees by exchange from the said Hussain.
2. The consolidation proceedings commenced in the revenue estate in the year 1974, as a result whereof the petitioners lost possession of the land acquired by them. On an examination of the record they came to know about the said wrong entry in the register of Haqdaran Zamin for the year 1968-69. They filed the present suit on 1-2-1982 for possession of the suit land which as a result of the Consolidation/Qilabandi forms part of Square No,89/Qilla No,1711, Square No,49/Qilla No,25/2, Sqaure No,89/Qilla No,17/2, Square No,96/Qilla No,10/3 and Square No,89/.Qilla Nos.24/1, 25, 24/4 as per Khatauni Paimaish of the said revenue estate. The respondents filed a written statement objecting the suit to be time-barred and claiming acquisition of title by prescription. On merits they claimed that they had acquired Khasra No,2265 from Hussain through five different mutations.
3. Regarding the exchange in favour of the petitioners they expressed ignorance. The learned trial Court framed the following issues:---
(1) Whether the suit is not maintainable in view of preliminary objection "Alif-Bay"? OPD.
(2) Whether the suit is time-barred? OPD.
(3) Whether the defendants have become owners of the suit land by way of adverse possession over the same for more than 12 years? OPD.
(4) Whether the plaintiffs are owners of the suit land and as such are entitled to the relief claimed for? OPP.
(5) Relief.
4. ' Evidence of the parties was recorded. The learned trial Court with reference to document Exh.D.8 (Jamabandi for the year 1952-53) came to the conclusion that the said Hussain was owner of only 3 Kanals, 9 Marlas of land in the Khata and he made alienation in favour of both the parties in excess of his share. It was further observed that since the mutation in favour of the respondents was entered prior in time, the entire alienation of 2 Kanals, 19 Marlas in their favour stands saved while the petitioners are entitled only to 10 Marlas of land. Consequently he granted a decree to the petitioners for joint possession of the said 10 Marlas vide judgment and decree, dated 30-6-1985.
5. Both the parties felt dissatisfied and filed appeals against the said judgment. These appeals were heard by a learned Additional District Judge, Gujrat who dismissed both the appeals on 19-12-1986.
6. The respondents felt content. However, the petitioners have challenged the impugned . Judgment through this Civil Revision.
2. Mrs. Farzana Shehzad Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the learned trial Court failed to read the evidence on record while calculating the ownership of the said Hussain.
7. According to the learned counsel the share in the column of possession is to be calculated not with reference to the specific Khasra numbers but with reference to the entire joint holding for determining the validity of a transaction effected in the column of possession. Mr. Abdul Majid Khan, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has tried to support the impugned judgment.
3. I have gone through the copies of the record placed on the file of this Civil Revision with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. After perusal of the record I am inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioners, I find a document Exh.D.2 on the record which is copy of register of Haqdaran Zamin for the year 1968-69. This document contains the complete detail of the Khata wherefrom the land was transferred by Hussain to both the parties. According to the entries in this document the total Khata measures 5 Kanals, 7 Marlas and Hussain is owner of 2700/4320 share in the whole Khata. His share, thus, comes to 9 Kanals, 12 Marlas. There is nothing on the record to suggest that any other alienation apart from those made in favour of the parties was effected by the said Hussain. Upon reading of the said document the alienations made by the said Hussain in favour of both the parties totalling 7 Kanals, 7 Marlas were well within his share. Both the transactions are, therefore, valid. The transactions relied upon by the two parties have already been referred to in detail above. These are evidenced by document Exh.P.4 (mutation No,1354) and Exh.D.9 (mutation No,1352). The former evidences transfer of 4 Kanals, 8 Marlas by Hussain in favour of the petitioners while the latter evidences transfer of 2 Kanals, 19 Marlas by Hussain in favour of the respondents. I have already stated above that the transaction in favour of the petitioners was duly incorporated in the Revenue Record prepared for the year 1960-61. The respondents have not been able to show as to how their name was inserted against the said land i,e,, measuring 4 Kanals, 8 Marlas comprising Khasra No,5225/2265 in the following Jamabandi. They do not claim any acquisition of land from the petitioners and they have not proved any acquisition of the said land from Hussain at any time. This being so, the entries in register Haqdaran Zamin for the year 1968-69 pertaining to the suit land belonging to the petitioners are incorrect and as such unlawful.
8. It is the duty of the Revenue Officers to see to it that the entries are correctly made. Needless to add that this Court has held on several occasions that an entry once made in accordance with law shall continue till its lawful change. The manner and circumstances in which the entries can be changed are fully detailed in section 45 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967. None of the said circumstances existed or even alleged to have existed. This being so, the entries in favour of the petitioners in register Haqdaran Zamin for the year 1960-61 shall be deemed to be continuing and any other entry to the contrary in favour of the respondents shall be of no legal effect. Reference may be made to the case of no legal effect. Reference may be made to the case of Allah Dad v.
9. Muhammad Ali and others (PLD 1956 Lahore 245) also followed in the case of Azam Khan v. Azad Khan etc. (PLD 1986 Lahore 275). Both the impugned judgments, therefore, suffer from misreading as well as non-reading of the evidence on record. Both the impugned judgments are, therefore, set aside. This Civil Revision is allowed and the suit of the petitioners is decreed. It is made clear that the petitioners are owners of 4 Kanals, 8 Marlas of land comprising Khasra No,5225/2265 as per copy of Register Haqdaran Zamin for the year 1960-61 while the respondents are owners of 2 Kanals, 19 Marlas of land comprising Khasra No,5224/2265. The adjustment in the Killabandi shall be made accordingly. The parties are left to bear their own costs.