QAZI MUHAMMAD FAROOQ, J.---The dispute in this civil appeal relates to the ownership of a piece of land measuring 2 Kanals, 3 Marlas, situated in Village Sawal Dher, Tehsil and District Mardan. It was agitated by Jannat Gul, predecessor-in-interest of the respondents, through a suit wherein it was alleged that the suit-land was owned by him but had been dishonestly transferred in favour of Akhtar Hussain by Rehmat Shah and Munawar Shah, predecessors-in-interest of appellants Nos. 1 to 24, who were in its possession as tenants-at-will. After a hot contest the suit was dismissed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Mardan on 24-10-1995 and so was the appeal by the learned District Judge, Mardan on 21-11-1996. However, the revision petition arising therefrom was allowed by a learned Judge in Chambers of the Peshawar High Court, vide judgment dated 17-5-1999, and the suit was decreed.
2. The learned two Courts below had dismissed the suit on the grounds that the appellants had become owners of the suit-land by adverse possession on the strength of the entries in the Revenue Record of "Bila Lagan Ba Tasawar Malkiyat" in their favour and the suit was time-barred having not been brought within a period of six years from the starting point of the said entries, namely, 1926-27. The tables were turned on the appellants by the High Court for the reasons that in the Revenue Record they were recorded as tenants-at-will in the column of cultivation which had an edge over the column of Lagan and they could not even claim adverse possession as it had been held to be repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam in Maqbool Ahmed v. Hakoomat-e-Pakistan 1991 SCM R 2063. It was further observed that the appellants were also not entitled to get any compensation for the improvements made by them on the suit-land as they had done so without permission of the landlord.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties on the questions of adverse possession, limitation and compensation we find that the impugned judgment is unexceptionable. The claim of ownership of the suit-land as set up in the plaint stands established in view of the Revenue Record and the written statement of the appellants wherein they have claimed title over the suit-land through adverse possession. No doubt in the column of Lagan of the Revenue Record the appellants have been shown to be in possession of the suit-land as "Bila Lagan Ba Tasawar Malkiyat" since 1926-27 but they cannot make any mileage therefrom in the face of the column of cultivation wherein they have been recorded as tenants-at-will. The learned lower Courts overlooked the settled law that whenever in a case involving the plea of adverse possession there is a conflict between the entries in the column of cultivation and the column of Lagan and there is no independent evidence to substantiate the plea of adverse possession the entries in the column of cultivation are to be given preference over the entries in the column of Lagan. The law on the subject was settled by this Court in several cases including Tehmas and 16 others v. Dawar Khan PLD 1990 SC 629 wherein it was held that an entry in the column of Lagan would not be preferred over an entry in the column of possession/cultivation, or for that matter the column of ownership and the party relying on the column of Lagan as against the cultivation column would be entitled to produce evidence independent of the entry itself to show that the entry in the column of Lagan had a separate contemporaneous support from other reliable evidence, which of course, together with the disputed entries, would have to be put in juxtaposition to the entry in column of cultivation.
The view was reiterated in Ali Akbar and others v. Malook and others 1991 SCM R 829 and it was observed-that entries in the Revenue Record of "Bila Lagan Ba Tasawar Malkiyat" in favour of a party only would not make a case of adverse possession in his favour. It was further reinforced in Hakeem Shah v. Sawab Khan and 17 others PLD 2002 SC 200 with the observations that entry of "Bila Lagan" in column of rent of Record of Rights if irreconcilable with entry of column of cultivation would not be of any help to those recorded in column of cultivation as tenants. In the present case there is no independent evidence on record to augment the odd entries in the column of Lagan and the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the learned lower Courts are not only based on incorrect and improper appreciation of the entries of the Revenue Record but are also against the law laid down by this Court, therefore, the High Court has rightly resolved the controversy in favour of the respondents. As regards the principle enunciated in the case of Maqbool Ahmed (supra) suffice it to say that the plea of adverse possession is unfounded, therefore, there is no need to advert to the same.
4. The question of limitation finds no place in the suit on account of permissive possession of the appellants and the latter having carried out some improvements unilaterally also cannot clamor for compensation. For the reasons stated above, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.