JUDGMENT MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.- Dispute between the parties relates to the entitlement of Shamlat Deh. Suit filed by the respondents for declaration, claiming the right son the basis of Hasb-e-Rasad Zar-e-Khewat was dismissed by the Trial Court, vide judgment and decree dated 25.1.1993. Appeal filed by the respondents was accepted on 27.7.1995 and the said suit was decreed.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are, that the parties are at discord about their entitlement qua the division of Shamlat Deh, measuring 15 Kanals and 5 Marlas, situated in village Doda, Tehsil Bhatti, District Sargodha, which was jointly owned by th propriety body of the village.
Consolidation proceedings in the village commenced somewhere before 1972. The Consolidation Officer, partitioned the Shamlat Deh on the basis of Hasb-e-Rasad Khewat, impugned by the respondents through appeal, which was allowed by the Commissioner, vide order dated 17.2.1971 and it Was directed that such partition must be on the basis of Hasb-e-Rasad Zar-e-Khewat.
Against the above, the petitioner preferred an appeal, which was accepted by the learned Additional Commissioner Consolidation, Sargodha, but with the direction that the aggrieved party, should approach the Civil Court for the determination their entitlement and distribution, In this background, the respondents filed a suit, which as mentioned above, was disallowed, but the appeal has been accepted. The only dispute between the parties, is about the scale of division i.e. Whether on the, basis of Hasb-e-Rasad Khewat or Hasb-e-Rasad Zar-e-Khewat.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends, that according to Misal Haqyyat for the year 1892-93 (Ex. D4) and Jamabandi for the year 1901-02, the partition of the Shamlat between two groups of the propriety body was made on the basis of Hasb-e-Rasad Khewat, but the subsequent Jamabandi for the year 1905, contemplates Hasb-e-Rasad Zar- e-Khewat, which entry continued till 1934 except Jamabandi for the year 1910. After 1934, the entries in the Jamabandi, again were changed and Hasb-e-Rasad Khewat was entered and this continued till 1962-63, whereafter, no change was made when ultimately the consolidation proceedings commenced, thus, on the latest Jamabandi, the consolidation authorities rightly proceeded to divide the Shamlat on the basis of Hasb-e-Rasad Khewat and this is the factual and true legal position as well; the learned Trial Court, has properly appreciated the evidence on the record, but the learned Appellate Court has misread the evidence. It is also submitted, that the entry in the revenue record on the basis of Hasb-e- Rasad Khewat, are since long standing and such entries, could not be changed by the revenue authorities without there being any legal order to the effect; as there is no such order, therefore, the change brought during certain period from Hasb-e-Rasad Khewat to Hasb-e-Rasad Zar-e- Khewat, is illegal and unlawful. It is further submitted, that the order of Ganga Ram, the Collector, which has been made the basis of the judgment, by the Court of appeal, has no relevance, because such order pertained to the division of Shamlat between two groups of the propriety body i.e. Tullas and Gondals. It is also argued, that the Appellate Court, has heavily relied upon mutation No. 232, but there is no order of the competent authority on record to back/support the mutation on account of which the same could be shown to have been attested.
4. Conversely, learned counsel for the respondents, by relying upon the judgments reported as Sunder and others v. Inder Singh (Lal) and others (AIR 1935 Lah. 446), Dasondhi Khan and others v.
Jan Muhammad and others (AIR 1938 Lah. 318), Karim Bakhsh and others v. The State (PLD 1980 Rev.
55) and Mitha and others v. Ghulam Hussan and others (PLD 1949 Lah. 46), contends that not withstanding about the nature of the entry, may it be Hasb-e-Rasad Khewat or Hasb-e-Rasad Zar- e-Khewat, as these, are interchangeable terms, the division of Shamlat in either of the two cases has to be according to the revenue assessed on the holdings. It is also submitted, that actually Mst.
Fattan, the original petitioner, is the successor of ]allu son of Boota, the revenue authorities assessed the land of the Jaith at the rate of Rs.5.1 (Rupees Five and One Aana), and Mst. Fattan has only inherited to the extent of very meagre share whereas the other legal heirs of Jallu as also his collaterals and other members of the propriety body, have already accepted the mode of partition, as has been held by the Court of appeal.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and find, that the entries of Hasb-e-Rasad Khewat and Hasb-e- Rasad Zar-e-Khewat, in fact, are interchangeable terms and do not have much significance when the entitlement of the propriety body of the village for the purposes of partition of Shamlat is under consideration. In this regard, the judgments relied by the learned counsel for the respondents, are very clear, thus, applying either of the two rules, the partition of the Shamlat is to be made on the basis of the land revenue assessed to the holding of the co-sharer of the Shamlat. The judgment of the learned Court of appeal is absolutely in line with the above principle and is based upon the proper interpretation of the entires. Moreover, in the earlier round of litigation between the Tullas and Gondals, Ganga Ram, the Collector, had also partitioned the Shamlat in-between these two groups, on the basis of revenue assessed on the holdings.
Furthermore, as has been argued by the respondents side, that Mst. Fattan has a very meagre share in the Shamlat and it seems that the other legal heirs of ]allu, had already accepted the scale of partition, therefore, for such small share, the settled Division should not be upset.
6. In the light of above, the other contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, do not have much relevance for the disposal of this revision, because as held earlier, the petition is being decided mainly on the question, that the partition has to take place on the basis of the revenue assessed on the holdings and this is exactly what has been done by the learned Court of appeal.
This revision petition, thus, has no merits and is hereby dismissed.