SHAHZAD HASSAN PERVEZ, MEMBER (JUDICIAL-I).- This case is about correction of Khasra Girdawari in respect of land comprising Square No. 56, Khasra Nos. 21/2, 22, 23, 25/2, Square No. 57, Killa-Nos. 21, 22, 23, 24, Square No. 60, Square No. 4/1 measuring 46 Kanals, situated in Chak No. 127/NB, Tehsil and District Sargodha for Kharif 1986, Rabi 1987 and Kharif 1987. This land was purchased through registered sale-deed No. 1841 dated 14.10.1969 by Ch, Muhammad Shabhir, Muhammad Ashraf and Muhammad Saghir in equal shares. The possession of the land was delivered to the owners. Under the column of cultivation, the statement "Khud Kasht Maqbooza Malkan" was recorded. In Kharif 1986, entry under the column of cultivation was changed and Ch. Muhammad Shabhir, co-sharer, was shown to be in cultivating possession of the subject land. No, reason for i.e change of fois entry was recorded in Roznamcha Waqiati. Muhammad Ashraf and Muhammad Saghir challenged fois entry and D.C/Collector vide his loaders dated 30th of December, 1990 ordered for deletion of entry in favour of Ch. Muhammad Ashraf for Kharif 1986, Rabi 1987 and Kharif 1987. The previous statement of "Khud Kasht and Maqbooza Malkan" was allowed to be recorded in i.e statement. This order was challenged before Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), Sargodha Division who vide his order dated 31.8.1991 upheld i.e order of D.C/Collector. The present revision petitions have been filed against fois order dated 31.8.1991 of Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), Sargodha Division.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the subject land had been purchased by Muhammad Shabhir to the extent of one-third in his on name and i.e remaining two-third in the name of his father in a Benami Transaction although in the sale-deed names of his brothers were mentioned. His father gifted two-third share to Muhammad Shabbir's were. This gift was resisted by Muhammad Ashraf and Muhammad Saghir in a civil suit. The Civil Court issued status quo. Despite the currency of status quo order issued by the Civil Court, D.C/Collector proceeded to change the entries of Khasra Girdawari for Kharif 1986, Rabi 1987 and Kharif 1987. It is contention of learned counsel for i.e petitioner that under i.e instructions of the Board of Revenue, Additional Commissioner is not competent to hear appeals against the order of D.C/Collector. It is stated that i.e order of D.C./Collector whereby respondents were to be entered as being in cultivating possession of the land was not maintainable since the espondents were not residents of the Chak.
One of them (Muhammad Ashraf) is resident of Siilanwali and the other Muhammad Saghir is serving n Rawalpindi. Khud Kasht Maqbooza Malkan was, therefore, an erroneous entry ordered to be made by District Collector vide his order dated 11.12.1990. Both the lower Courts fell in error in ordering that entry of Chud Kasht Maqbooza Malkan be made. It was further argued that Aabiana etc. In respect of the entire land was being paid by the petitioner on his >wn and on behalf of his were. It was averred that after the gift made by iaji Phool Muhammad in favour of were of the petitioner, the petitioner came into possession of the land in 1985 and this position resulted into change of entries of cultivation in Khasra Girdawari. At the time of mrchase.Of the land one Muhammad Nawaz was cultivating the land as enant. He was ejected under orders of Revenue Officer Halqa.
2. It was stated by learned counsel for the respondents that the land vas purchased by the present petitioner Ch. Muhammad Saghir in the year 1969 through registered sale-deed. As against the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that one-third was purchased in the name of the jetitioner and two-third in the name of his father, the learned counsel for he respondents stated that Ch. Muhammad Shabhir, the present petitioner, m the basis of the general power-of-attorney given by Muhammad Ashraf ind Muhammad Saghir transferred their share in the joint ownership in "avour of their father. The respondents filed civil suit against this gift-deed. Die suit was decreed in favour of the respondents on 26.12.1986. Under he column of ownership, the three brothers were shown to be in cultivating >ossession of the land and under the column of cultivation "Khud Kasht Maqbooza Malkan" was entered. After the passage of order by the Civil lourt mutation No. 3322, dated 18.12.1986 was entered. In Kharif 1986, he land was vacant at site and the petitioner got his name entered in the column of cultivation without reference to any entry in Roznamcha Waqiati.
The respondents thereafter submitted applications for correction of Register Girdawari to D.C/Collector. The D.C/Collector allowed the correction. The petitioner went in appeal before Commissioner who remanded the case to A.C/Collector. A.C/Collector went to the site on 6.11.1989, and mentioned in his report that the and at site is vacant and has not been cultivated for the last 2'A years. It was stated that since the land was jointly