Mst Gulzar Bibi VS Chief Commissioner Isb

FORM NO. HCJD/C

JUDGMENT SHEET

IN THE ISLAMABAD HIGH COURT,

ISLAMABAD

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

WRIT PETITION 1717 0F 2006

MST. GULZAR BIBI AND 2 OTHERS

VERSUS

THE CHIEF COMMISS'ONER, ICT ETC.

DATE OF HEARING 19-12.2008

Dr. G.S. Khan Advocate, for petitioner No.7. ,/ Raja Anwar-ul-Haq Advocate, for petitioner No.2.

Mr. Shamshadullah Cheema Advocate, for petitioner No.3.

Raja M. Aleem Khan Abbasi, Standing Cou nsel.

Raja Inam Amin Minhas Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3.

Ch, Afrasiab Khan Advocate, for respondents No.6 to 20.

Syed Abdul Aziz Shah Advocate.

Syed Wajid Ali Gillani Advocate.

Mr. Abdul Zahoor, Naib Tehsildar, Islamabad. Mr. Zakir, Patwari, revenue estate, Jhangi Syedan, Islamabad.

JUDGMENT

Sardar Muhammad Aslam G.J. This judgment shall dispose of both the writ petitions No.1717 of 2006 and t762 of 2006, as both impugn the order of Chief Commissioner, Islamabad dated 2L-06-2006.

Z. Both the writ petitions are directed against the order of Chief Commissioner, Islamabad exercising the powerS of Board of Revenue,ICf ,Islamabad allowing revision of the respondents and setting aside the concurrent findings recorded by Deputy

Commissioner, Islamabad exercising the powers of Commissioner (Revenue), Islamabad as wel! as Assistant Commissioner/District Collector, Islamabad, directing the parties to seek remedy from the civi! court.

3.The Cotlector, Islamabad-respondent No.3 received a complaint, through the Chief Executive Secretariat, National Accountability Bureau, Investigation Wing-CIT, Islamabad of tampering in various revenue record of Mauza Jhangi Syedan, Islamabad. After thorough examination of record and repoft from Tehsildar/Field Revenue Staff, found that entries against the following khewat numbers of Misal-e-Haqiat, 1955-56, of revenue estate, Mauza Jhangi Syedan, Islamabad have been tampered:- 22, 25, 32, 33r 34, 47r 44,

4G, 82, BB, 84, 87, 89,

Comparison of old and new Khewat numbers is as under:- Khewat number as New Khewat number as Per per Misal-e- Jamabandi 1990-91 Haoiat, 1956-57

22 139, L4O, L4L L92, 193,

25 I44,L45

87 7 58 4L

89 7t 72

L46 L94 195 196

The collector passed order dated L2-3-2001 for correction of revenue record of following Khewat numbers of Mauza Jhangi

wRlT PETmON NO.1717 0F 2@6

Syedan, Islamabad as there was an injunctive order against the rest *139, 140, L4L, 193, L92, 191, 166, 55, 58,7t,

72, 74, 75, 76, 194, 195 , L96, 252, 253 and 254."

4.The order dated 12-03-2001 was assailed, by respondents No.6 to 20, in appeal before respondent No.2, who dismissed the appea! vide his order dated 07-01-2005. Revision petition No.02l2005 was filed before respondent No.1, exercising the powers of Board of Revenue, Islamabad, who accepted the same vide his order dated 2L-6-2006 directing the parties to seek their remedy from the Civil Court, which has given rise to this petition.

5.Petitioners learned counsel have contended that revenue record was tampered with, hence rightly ordered to be corrected by the forum below through concurrent orders which have been set aside by the Chief Commissioner, Islamabad merely on the ground that the parties have a remedy in civil court; the learned Chief Commissioner has lost sight of the provision of Section L72 of Land Revenue Act, L967, which confer exclusive jurisdiction upon the revenue courts to order correction of entries ;fraud vitiates the most solemn proceedings; concurrent findings of fact can not be set aside in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction unless the findings are based on misreading and non-reading. Reference has been made to PLD 1966 W.P. (Rev.) 8O (Fateh Muhammad versus Maula Bakhshr PLD 7967 W.P. (Rev.t 9 (ch. FATEH KHAN versus Mst. SHAHZAD BEGttM) PLD 7997 Lahore 374 ( DILMIR and othETS VETSUS MEMBER BOARD OF REVENUE PUNJAB

t

wRtT PEftTtoN NO. 1717 0F 2o0i6

LAHORE end I othersl 7 2 SCMR 7334 (MUHAMMAD TUFAIL versus MEMBER (COLONIESI. BOARD OF REVENUE and others) 7998 CLC 7276 (IQBAL KHAN through Leoal Heirs and 2 others versus MUHAMMAD ILYAS & 5 otherst and a Memorandum No, 583-85 468 llahore. Board of Revenue. Puniab, Lahore.",

6.On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents vehemently argued that long standing entries appearing in the settlement record can not be changed by the revenue authorities in summary manner without the order of civil court. Reference has been made to 2OO2 YLR 2249 [Lahorel MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH and 5 others versus SHEHZAD HUSSAIN and 8 others) 2OO4 YLR 2992 [Lahorel ( HIMAT alias ALLAH DEYA Versus Rehmatr PLD 7994 Peshawar 249. (Mst, GULPARI alias GULBARO versus ZARIN KHAN and others) 7994 MLD 2254 lLahorel MUHAMMAD ISHAQ Versus MEMBER (Rr. BOARD OF REVENUE. PUNJAB. LAHORE AND 78 others) 2OOG CLC 876 I Lahorel (ANJUM MAHMOOD and 5 others versus RIZWAN AHMAD and 7 others't 7996 CLC 769O [Board of Revenue Puniabl (Mst, SURRAYIA BANO versus Mst, NAZIA BANO and others); that the matter is sub-judice before the civil court involving complicated question of facts and law, hence the constitution petition is not maintainable. Reference has been made to PLD 7968 Suoreme Court 785 (Chowhury TANBIR AHMAD

SIDDIKY VETSUS THE PROVINCE OF EAST PAKTSTAN AND

OTHERST, 2OO4 SCMR 6O4 lsuoreme Court of Pakistanl (NEMAT Att and another versus Malik HABIB ULLAH and others)

wRtT PEnnoN NO. 1717 0F 2006

and that the report of revenue officials seeking correction in entries is ex-parte, hence of no avail.

7.Heard, record perused.

8.Before attending to the merits of the case, I deem it appropriate to go through the case law cited by both the sides to find out the ratio decidendi deducible from the above case law.

PLD 7966 W.P, (Rev.l 8O:- It was held that concurrent findings of facts can not be interfered in rev i s io n a I j u risd i ctio n.

PLD 7967 W,P. (Rev,) 9:- It was held that revenue authorities were not precluded from correcting, by way of review, wrongful entries of mutations secured through fraud or collusion of revenue subordinates.

PLD 7997, LAHORE 374:- correction of any entry in the record-of-rights, periodical record or register of mutations having been expressly barred by Section 172(2)(vi) of the Act from the jurisdiction of Civil Courts, errors in such record could be rectified by the Revenue Authorities alone.

7992 SCMR 7334:- The dispute pertained to allotment of horse-breeding grant in the Horse Breeding Scheme. The concurrent findings of the revenue officials were not interfered with holding that so far as the question of entitlement is concerned, namely, as to who is the best person entitled to the allotment of the grant, concurrent findings of facts have been recorded by the revenue officials and the same calls for no intefference, there being no iudicial errors in the orders.

wNT PETmON NO.17t7 0F 200A

7998 CLC 7276:- Rectification of mutation was held justified for entries based on fraud and concealment of facts. Error which had appeared due to incidental slip, could be corrected by revenue authorities at any stage and such entry could not create any right in favour of person, who rs guilty of securing the same by concealment of facts.

MEMORANDIIM NO, 583-85 468'r HR, Board of Revenue. Puniab. Lahore Dated O7-O5-7985:- Restriction on variation of entries in records:'

Entries in a record of rights or in a periodical record, except entries mentioned in the periodical record by Patwaris under clause (a) of Section 43 with respect to un-disputed acquisition of interest referred to in that section, shall not be varied in subsequent records otherwise then by:'

(a)making entries in accordance with facts proved or admitted to have occurred;

(b)making such entries as are agreed to by all the parties interested therein or are supported by a decree or order binding on those parties; and

(c)making new maps where it is necessary to make them.

Pt.,D 7968 SUPREME COURT 785 :- A number of petitions under the then Article-99 of the constitution of 1962 were filed questioning the notifications issued

wRtT PETmON NO. fir7 0F 2@G

under sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the East Bengal State Acquisition and Tenancy Act, 7950. In one of the petition at the time of hearing, it was observed by the High Court that a regular suit, filed by the appellant to estabtish the nature of the propertY, is pending in the civit court, which would be a sufficient ground for denying relief in constitutional iurisdiction.

PLD 7994 Peshawar 249 :- Civil Revision before the High Court arose out of a declaratory suit filed before the civit court. The controversy between the parties was as to whether the jurisdiction of civil court is barred under Section 172(2) (vi) of Land Revenue Act, 1967 and whether the suit ,s barred by the principle of constructive re iudicata. The facts involved were as to whether the petitioner was daughter of deceased land- lord requires evidence, hence iurisdiction of civil court is not barred.

7994 MLD 2254 [Lahore I :- The dispute related to a sale made through sate deed in violation of para. 25 of the Land Reforms Regulation, 1959. The M.B.R. set aside the transaction of sale. High Court, held that it was not a case of mere rectification of revenue entries.

Question of title has been decided by the learned Member, Board of Revenue, who had no iurisdiction in the matter.

wRtT PEtlflou No. 1717 0F 2@C

I

7996 CLC 769O t Board of Revenue Puniabl:- The case related to a review of mutation and it was held that the transaction was made through a registered sale deed and the said document holding the field, petitioner can not be deprived of his valuable rights.

2OO2 YLR 2249 [Lahorel :- The controversy between the pafties, in this case was as to whether Mst.Ghulam Ayesha had been appointed as guardian for the land of wafa Abbas minor, in village Kamala or his guardianship wiil extend to vittage latta Makhdoom as well. In this view, it was held that this factual controversy requires evidence.

2OO4 SCMR 6O4 I Supreme Court of Pakistant :- The faCtS of the case were that an application was moved for review of mutations before additional Commissioner on which an order was passed by the collector, directing Tehsitdar for its disposal as per law. Respondents filed a suit for declaration and iniunction questioning assumption of jurisdiction by the collector. stance taken by the ptaintiff was controverted and an application for rejection of plaint under order 7 Rule 11 CPC was moved, Plaint was reiected. Decision was affirmed in appeat, The High court accepted the civil revision and remitted the case to the trial court. Leave was sought against the order which was refused on the ground that the rights of the parties as agitated by both

wRtf PETITiON NO. t717 0F 2006

the sides are to be determined by a court which is seized of the civil suit.

2oo4 YLR 2992 rlahoret :-This matter arose out of a civil suit. ft was observed that civir court can not assume the function performable by revenue officiats under the Land Revenue Act, 1967, but whenever a dispute with regard to titte of property comes for determination the onty forum for this purpose is civit court.

2OO6 CLC 876 [Lahoret :- It was a suit for declaration pleading that a decree was passed in favour of defendants and the same is iltegal and void. The court in that context relying on the provisions of section 12(2) CPC directed return of the plaint.

9.on examination of the case law, I am of the opinion that revenue courts have exclusive jurisdiction under Section L7Z of the Land Revenue Act, L967 to direct correction of an entry in the revenue record even if it is in the setUement record, old and long standing, if not supported by any decree, order or judgment of the court and varied in violation of section 45 of revenue Act.

10.on access to the original record and its examination, in presence of the learned counsel for both the partieT it manifests interpolation and tampering. when confronted with such interpolation of record, learned counsel for the respondents replied that evidence is required on this score. stance of the

revenue officer is that disputed entries in the revenue record are result of interpolation, fraud and are not backed by any order of the court or revenue officer.

11.The order of Assistant Commissioner/Collector was well reasoned, which was affirmed by the Deputy

commissioner/commissioner (Revenue). These concurrent orders were not amenable to revisional jurisdiction, in the absence of any mistake apparent on the face of record. The original record clearly indicates interpolation and its tampering. Admittedly, the beneficiary of such interpolation and tampering are the contesting respondents. Their names have been entered against certain khewats, for the first time, while shares have been increased against some of the khewat numbers without acquisition of any title document. Khewat-wise position is recorded below:- Khcw Jamabanda Khcwa Jamabandi Khc l.lisal-e- KhGwat Obseruation by thc court at ilo, for thc year t for the year wat Haqiat Numbcrs 19.!l-rts. No. 1952-53 Num r956-57 ,amabandi lrar 1990-91 NAHE OF ilauE__oE owIrtERs ilAItEOE otuxE8s OWNERS

Total 24 share Total 195 share as Total 95 share 2;t as under:- 23 under: - as under:- 139 In 7952-53, figu?e 7 was.ddcd to make the Lal Hussain Shah- 22 Qurban Hussain Ibrar Hussain Shah- Lal Hussaln 140 shares 796. In 7956-57, lt was txordcd as Shah son of Ghulam Hussain Shah- Ibrar 96 sharas. Intetpolatlon ls clear on orlgin.l Hayat Shah-3- Shah sons of Nazar Hussain Shah- 141 share Shah--- 33 shares Ghulam Hussain record, Changc ls not supported by any Inayat Hussain each Shah sons of t92 document, Shah- Lal Nazar Shah--- Hussain Shah- Ashiq Hussain Shah 33 shares each 193 Ibrar Hussaln son of Qurban Shah-Ghulam Hussain shah Hussarn Shah-g Ashiq Hussain 409 sons of Nazar share Shah son of Qurban Hussain 410 Shah---5 shares Mst. Hussain Fatima Shah-9 share each Mst. Hussaln wldow of Mehtab Fatlma widow of Shah-18 shares Mst, Hussain Fatlma widow of Mehtab Shah-3 share Karam Hussain Mehtab Shah- Shah son of Fazal 18 shares Hussain Shah--- 36 Mst. Nazrr shares caste Syed Karam Hussain Fatima widow of Nazir Hussaln Mashahadl Shah son of Shah-3 share residents. Fazal Hussain Karam Hussaln Shah--- 26 Shah son of Abdul Majeed Shah- shares caste Fazal Hussain Meer Alam Shah- Syed Mashahadl Shah-9 share Abdul Hameed residents.

caste Syed Shah-Abdul Azlz '2la Shah-Mehboob Mshahadi residents.

Elahi Shah- F.zal Din son qf Shcr Baz "A to KhrE'1O Ato A:- Ch.nga w.s made by lottoducing sharc"- l.luhammad Rafloue Sh.h t the names witl;out acquisition of tltle sons of Faz.l Din Actual owners- Shah castc caste Qureshi B to B:- Names at A to A wGre omilted ourcshl Hashml- Hashmi resident and instcad B to B substituted.

asllral of Thulla Syedan ownGrs-"1OO ShtfEgl_resrdents of Thulla Syedan.

A".

@ 11 tJrit Petition No.1?17/2006 the vcar 1944- t l{o. ycar 1952-53 wat 156-57 Numbers 4E No. Jamabandi

25 L44

NAiIE OF NAME OF

AIUITEBE OWNERS

T{ I'E OF 145

owN.ER.S

Total 95 share as under: -

Total 196 share as Total 24 share under: - Lal Hussain as under:- Shah-l1 shares Qurban Hussatn Lal Hussaln Shah- Ibrar Hussaln shah son of Ibrar Hussain Shah- Shah-Ghulam Hayat Shah-3- Ghulam Hussain Hussain Shah - share Shah sons of Nazar equal shares--- Shah--- 33 shares Haqdaran Inayat Hussaln each shamlat---sons Shah- Lal of Nazar Shah--- Hussain Shah- Ashlq Hussatn Shah Ashiq Hussaln Ibrar Hussain son of Qurban Shah sons of shah-Ghulam Hussaln Shah-9 Qurban Hussain Hussain Shah share Shah-9 sons of Nazar share- Shah---6 shares Mst. Hussaln Fatlma 22 shares each wldow of Mehtab Mst. Hussaln Shah-18 shares Fatrma wldow of

Mehtab Shah-8 Mst, Hussain Karam Hussain shares Fatima widow of Shah son of Fazal Mehtab Shah-3 Hussain Shah--- 36 Karam Hussain share shares---Abdul Shah son of Majeed Shah- Meer Fazal Hussaln Mst, Nazir Alam Shah-Abdul Shah--- 36 Fatma wldow of Hameed Shah- shares Nazlr Hussaln Abdul Azlz Shah- Abdul Majeed Shah-3 share Mehboob Elahi Shah-Meer Alam Shah-Muhammad Shah- Abdul Karam Hussaln :t_re Hameed Shah- Shah son of Rafloue shah Abdul Aziz Shah- C to C - Nlocated 7OO shares Fazal Hussain Ecos-af-faaLoin incorrectly and then changed as Mehboob Elahi Shah-g share Shah castc mentioned in D to D , Shah- caste SYed Ourcshi Hashmi- Change not supqorted bY document. '2to Mshahadi adlral iluhammad residents. ownere-*1OO BElicue--Shah Ehrrsg EoDs-of-Eazal 't: Din Shah cast.

residents of Thulla Our.shl Syedan ttashmi rssllcnts------of Itrxlla--svslaD ---euq.l shares-actual owners "11 shilrl ttD:

-12- Writ Fetition No. 1?17/2006 KhCWat Khcwa ,amabandl for the KhC Misal-c-Haqiat Khewat Observatlon by court l{o, thc ycar 1944- t No. year 1952-53 wat 1956-57 Numbcrs 45 No. Jemabendl

46 ilAUE__-___OE 44 191 OwNEBF:- IAUE-OE aI{XEBET

Total 32 share as under: - Total 54 share as under: -

Mst. Hussaln Fatima Mst. Hussaln wldow of Mehtab Fatima widow of Shah-3 shares Mehtab Shah-6

shares and

lilst, lcwi Noor Haqdar Shamlat- wifc of Faul Dln 9 share

caste Quieshi, Concct shate mantloned ln J.m.b.ndi 7952- rcsldcnt of Thulla Mst. Bewl Noor 53 .s "7" w.s substitutcd .s "1'wlthout .ny Sr(rtl.lr- wife of Fazal Din supporting document.

"1 shrrc" caste Qureshir'll

sharG

Rehman Son of Mehsam Ali- Abdul Rehman Muhammad Bakhsh Son of Mehsam son of Kamal-caste Ali-Muhammad Awan-6 share Bakhsh son of Kamal-caste

Karim Bakhsh son Awan-B share of waris-4 shares

"E to Karim Bakhsh Fazrl Dln son son of waris-8 Sher Baz caste shares

oureshi resid€nt :Ete Entry of 7 sharc w.s subsilAilcd by 22 s/r.tc of Thull. sy.dan- Frzal Din son with o ut . ny su p portl n g docu mGnt.

"z$arlE3- Shcr Qaz Khan "4. "22 sharcs'L Noor Ahmad -Fazal E Ahmad-Meer Noor Ahmad - Dad-Kanm Dad--- Fazal Ahmad- Fazal Elahi sons of Meer Dad- Elahl Bakhsh caste Karam Dad--- Awan- 7 equal Fazal Elahi sons shares-Muhammad of Elahl Bakhsh Aameen son of caste Awan- Hayat Bakhsh- 4 residents of share caste Aawan Chehllo share resident of Chehllo. equal to 10 shares-

Muhammad

Aameen son of

Hayat Bakhsh- 6

shares-owners in

possesslon-Lal

Hussarn Shah etc, Haqdaran Shamlat.

11 @ lrlrit Petition No. 1?17/?OAG I Khewat M court llo. for thc ycar No. for th. ycal Numbcr Haqi.t Numbers t944-43. 1952-53 1956-57 ,emabandl I{amc of Name of owners 50 OWNCrc 46 owncre 166 Total 288 Total 288 share shate as under

Lal Hussain Mst. Hussain Shah- Ibrar Fatrma wldow Hussain Shah- of Mehtab

Ghulam Shah-54 share

Hussarn Shah Ashiq Hussatn sons of Nazar Shah son of Shah -share Qurban equal to 27 Hussain Shah share 27 share

Ashiq Hussain Shah son of Karam Hussaln Qurban Shah son of Hussain Shah- Fazal Hussain 27 share Shah-26 share

Hussain

Fatlma widow Ghulam

Mehtab Shah Samar son of 54 share Jalal Din caste Karam Hussain Qureshi-24 Shah son of share

Fazal Hussarn Shah-55 share

Chan Shah son

Mst. Badral Bl of Ameer

wife of Nlaz Haider Shah Hussaln Shah- (30) share 24 share Safdar son of

Chanan Shah Mehr Bakhsh- son of Ameer 5 share Figurc 54 sharc in " G to G" ln tamabandl for Haider Shah- '5J9 thc year 7952-53 substitutcd wlth figure 94 30 share Fazal Din son share, in 7956-57i" H to H', of Sh.r Safdar son of aaz"94 Peer Bakhsh sharrJ 2/3 share - -.H:

Fazal Noor Rakhmat

widow of Meh Hussain Shah 1/3 share son of

:G-fo Muhammad Fazal Din son Shah-27 share of Shar Btz Khan 54 Lal Hussain

share" Shah -Ibrar :_9. Hussain Shah- Caste Qureshi residents of Ghulam

thulla Syedan Hussain Shah owners in sons of Nazar possesslon Shah-99

share, caste Syed Mashhadr

residents.

-14 -@ Writ Fetition No.1?17/?OAG Ghulam Shabir Hussaln

Shah son of shah son of All Fazal Shah Haiderf Shah owner in 1/3 share

possessron- Safdar Hussain 1/3 share Shah-Zafar Ali Shah -share Abdul Latif son equal to 14 of Ismail caste share {vide "mutation No. 1967 "land was purchased Qureshi Mst. Ghulam from the column of cultivation but implemented in Chehello t/3 Janat -Mst. the column of ownership) share zainab Fatlma

-daughters -7

Safdar Hussain share

Shah-Zafar Ali Ali Akbar Shah Shah sons -14 son of Ahmad share Ali Shah -116 Mst. Ghulam share Janat -Zenab Abdul Fatima Hameed daughters- share equal to shah son of 7 share-Mst. Fazal Din Kaneez Fatlma Shah-1/3 -3 share wldow Qaim Ehare Shah U6 CsEte share ourcshi All Akbar Shah son of Ahmad Hashmi Ali Shah 1/6 Esidlote share caste Syed Mashhadi Iturlla residents. sycdan

Abdul

Mst.

B4 Maieed Shah

Nishan wldow Ctc---roDs of Ahmad Eazal-Din Shah 213 ShaE[rff share Safdar Mst. Sahib Nishan wife of Hussarn Shah- Ahmad Shah Zafar Ali Shah 2/3 share - Safdar Hussain {auaut ru";eeo Shah etc. sons of Fazal Din Shah sons -share Shah-Zafar Ali equal to 74 are not owners in lamabandl for the year 1952-53 Shah sons - share share equal to but have become owners in Jamabandi for the year 14 share- Mst.

Mst. Ghulam 1956-57 without anY mutatlon. ) Ghulam Janat Janat -zainab -Zainab Fatima Fatima daughters- daughters share equal to share equal to 7 share 7-share-Mst, Mst. Kaneez Fabma- share Kaneez Fatlma share wldow of wldow of Qaim Qalm All Shah- Ali Shah -116 U6 share -Ali share Akbar Shah son of Ahmad Ali Akbar son All Shah-1/8 of Ahmad Ali share caste Syed Mashhadi Shah-1/6 Y2 share share caste residents, Syed Mashhadi

residents.

-19- Writ Petition No.171?/?0A6 8s/L Total 05 Total 09 share 91 {eoth cntrles 9 sh.re and 7 sharc in 1952-53 shafe------as as under as under: - under and 1956-57 raspcctively were recordcd incorrcaty.)

Fazal Shah son Fazal Shah son Fazal Hussain

son of Ameer of Ameer of Ameer Haider Shah- Haider Shah-2 Haider Shah-2 2 share 58 share share

Ali Haider Ali Halder

Alr Haider Shah son of Shah son of Shah son of zaman Shah- zaman Shah- zaman Shah - 4to 3share 3-share 3 share- Orlginal original origlnal owners- owners owners

Irshad Irshad Irshad Hussain Hussaln Shah Hussaln Shah son of Ali son of All Halder shah- son of Ali Halder Shah- 01 share Halder Shah - 01 share caste syed 01 share Mashhadl residents,

Abdul Majeed Shah -Meer Alam Shah- ErzrLDIEtcD Abdul Hameed of Sher Baz Shah-Abdul cestr Azlz Shah- Mehboob Elahi Ourcshl Shah- Hashmi

rlrfullrlr-of Muhammad Thullah Rafique Shah svedan-O1 sons Fazel share Din shah caEt!

oureshi-3- sbelt resldents of Thullah Syedan

-16- Writ Petltion No.1 717/2OOr

93 89 7L

Total 12 shares Total 36 share

Fazal Shah son of Ameer 72 Fazal Shah son of Ameer Haider Shah- Halder Shah--12 share actual owners-4 share Lal Hussain Shah son of Lal Hussain Shah - Nazar Shah-1 share Ibrar Hussain Shah - Ashiq Hussatn shah son of Ghulam Hussain Shah Qurban Hussain Shah -1 sons of Nazar Shah --- share-Ali Haider Shah son I share-Ashlq ot Zaman Shah -6 share Hussain son of Qureshi Sher -Ali Shan Hussain Shah owner--- Nccr Alam Shah were not I share Hear Nzm sh.h-Ahdut owners in 7952-Sg but I,ralecd Sheh-Ahdul madc in 1956-57 without Ali Haider Shah son of Hzmed Shzh-M.hhoob supporting document. Zaman Shah-2 share .lehi Shzh-Muhammad Rzflduc Sheh-Abdul Aziz Fatta son of Mehnda - Shah nns ol Fezl Dtn 4 share owner-4 Shah -zctuzl ownc6 -6 share caste Aawan - sharc -owncrs in residents. Dtosassion ---Bshdta

Total 402 share 75

Ashlq Hussain Shah Ashlq Hussain Shah son of son of Qurban Hussain Qureshi Hussain shah-250 Shah-1/2 share share- Allah Ditta son of Hashoo 18 share

Lal Hussain Shah son of Nazar Shah 1/6 Meer Alam Shah-67 share share caste Syed Abdul Majeed Shah- Mashhadi. Mehboob Elahi Shah-

t4uhammatl_Ba0gss..tshah Meer Alam Shah 1/6 In 1952-53, Qabza Ualk n -share eaual to 67 share share-Abdul MaJeed only substltutcd with ..Asl sons of Fazal DIn Cast. Malkan". Shah-Mehboob Elahi- Our.shl Htshmi resldGnts Muhammad Rafique : Orloinal owners".

Shah U6 share sons of F.zal Dln Sh.h castG Ouicshl residents of Thutla Svadan "owners ln t osscssion".

-17 Writ Petition No.171?/2006

23 NAITE------OE 23 t46 L94

OWI{ERS

"lot:l 796 shzre" Total 107 share as under rot6l 24

shaIe----as Lal Hussaln Shah' Lal Hussain Shah son of under Nazar Shah ---11 share- Ibrar Hussain Shah- Ashlq Hussain Shah son of Qurban ghulam Hussain Shah Qurban Hussain Shah-g 196 Hussah Shah share sons of Nazar shah --- son of Hayat Shah -3 33 share- Ashiq Mst. Hussaln Fatitma wldow 409 share of Mehtab Shah -18 share Hussan Shah son of Karam Hussain Shah son of Inayat Qurban Hussan Fazal Hussain Shah -36 Hussain- Lal share caste Syed Mashhadi Hussaln Shah-9 share---Mst. residents Shah-Ibrar lTussain Fattma wdow Hussain Abdul Majeed Shah-Meer Shah- of Mehtab Shah-'-18 Alam Shah- Abdul Hameed Ghulam share Shah-Abdul Aziz Shah- Hussain Shah Mehboob elahi Shah- Figure of 196 sharc sons of Nazar Uuhrmmad Rrflouc Shah interpolated and cntrics t<aram Hussain Shah "scDs-cf Shah-6 son of Fazal Hussain share- Mst. -ErzrLDio--:rl2 liafs: actual owners 11 made thercafter are Shah -i6 share @ste share ownerc tn Possession Hussain Syed Mashhadi. 11 share caste Qureshl incofied and not Fatima wldow of Mehtab resrdents of Thullah SYedan. supwtd by evidencc, Abdul Majeed Shah- Shah -3 share Meer Nam Shah- Abdul Hameed shah--- Mst. Nazlr Fatima wldow Abdul Aziz shah-" of Naztr Mehboob Elahi Shah-" Hussain Shah-3 lrJ/lh.DnilLBeticle share--- Karam Sbehsas-aLEazl Hussaln Shah Din sheh czstc son of Fazal Ourcshi Heshmi.

Hussaln Shah -9 share orlolnel ownets caste syed "7Oo shzre" Mashhadl residents. Residents of Thulla Syedan

34 L48 409

Total 128 share Total 192 share as under Lal Hussaln shah- Lal Hussaln Shah son of Ibrar Hussaln Shah--- Nazar Shah -19 share- chulam Hussain Shah Haqdar Shamlat sons of Nazar Shah -

38 share-Ashlq Abdul Hameed Shah- Meer Hussain son of Qurban Alam Shah-Abdul Hameed Hussain Shah-6 share Shah-Abdul Aziz Shah- -Mst. Hussaan Bi Mehboob Elahi shah- wldow of Mehtab Muhammad Raflque Shah Shah---5 share caste sons of Fazal Dln ---actual Syed Mashhadi -Chan owners -38 share caste Peer Shah son of Qureshl residents of Thulla zaman Shah -Lz Syedan

share Mst. Rani widow

of Dadan 66 share Mst. Hussain Fatima widow case Aawan residents- of Mehtab Shah-g share Owners ln possesslon. Chan Peer Shah son of Zaman Shah-18 share

Mst. Rani wldow of Dadan--- 99 share nin laz qureshl owner in documcnt ot order' loEEesEioD4zlbrIt:

-18- ',"r/rit Petitinn No.1 717/?OAG L49 Mst. Karam Begum 163 Total 192 share as under widow of Madad Shah fourth Amanat Hussarn Shah- Ghulam Abbas Shah sons of

Sultan Akbar shah- All Mst, Channan Bibl -share Asghar Shah sons of holder shamlat rights -30 254 Syed Shah -share share fourth Sultan Akbar shah-24 share Hussain Shah son of Karam Shah-Mst. All Asghar Shah 21 share Mehr Fatlma wldow of owner in possession 3-share Ali Haider Shah-Mst. sons Sald Shah-Hussarn Mehr Nishan wrdow of Shah son of Karam Shah Nawab Shah share real owner-34 share owner equal to fourth in possession 12 share Mst. Mehr Nazima widfow of Mst. Fazal Nishan Ah Harder Shah -Mst. Mehr widow Mehr Shah - Nlshan wldow of Nawab eighth Shah- sharer equal to 20 share

Ghulam Hussain Fazal Jan widow Mehr Shah Shah-Iqbal Hussarn (24 share) Ghulam Hussain Shah-sons Ameer Shah-Iqbal Hussaln Shah Ahmad shah -share sons Ameer Ahmad Shah elght caste Syed share equal 24 share caste Mashhadl residents, Syed Mashhadi residents.

sAhdrrl M.l..d Shah- Abdul Hamced shah-Mehr Ent€red ownGt wftho,rt AlrD-.-.,]liha[4Dt[d-lu Iz document, shrh-Mchboob Elahi Shah-Muhammad Rafloua Shrh sons Fazal Dln caste Qurashi resld.nts Thulla Svcdan owners in posscssign--15---rharc o.iginal owncrs-ls share"

222 sh.mlat DGh 229 shamlat deh accordlng 265 Shamlat Deh accordlng to .ccordlng to to share of owneEhip share of ownership z/1 shara of share Entries in tam.bandl zB'd llecr llam owncrshlp ,952-53 .nd 7956-57 Shah- Abdul bdul u.iGed shah, Mcer watc madc incofiectly. HamGGd Shrh- Alam Sh.h- Abdul They were not ownars in shanl.t Dch, Abdul Azlz Shrh- Hrmecd Shah-Ahdul Aziz Hlhboob Elahl Shah-ilehboob Elahl

Sbeh{Jl[amoad Shah-Muhammd Rafique Raflouc Shah- Abdul Shrh sons Fazel Din 1,/3 Hamced Sh.h- sons shaE Fa2al DIn Shah case

Our.shi Hashmi

residents 1/3 sharc

L2. Interpolation and tempering of revenue record is floating as mentioned in para-11. No judgment, order or proof regarding acquisition of ownership is available with the respondents in support of entries made in their favour. Driving the parties to civil litigation, which is spread over decades, will not be in the

interest of justice in a case of such a nature not involving any complicated question of fact calling for evidence. Jurisdiction vested in revenue hierarchy, if not exercised, then provisions of land revenue Act are to become redundant.

13.Considered from all aspects, the entries made in the revenue record in clear disregard to provisions of Section 45 Land Revenue Act, 1967, bY practicing fraud can not be given blessing.

Such entries are required to be corrected as and when brought to the notice of revenue officers. The Chief Commissioner has closed his eyes to the factual position and went for technical knock out.

Revisional jurisdiction exercised by him was arbitrary and thus his order is not sustainable.

L4. For what has been discussed above, constitution petitions No.17t7 of 2OOO and t762 of 2006 are allowed, impugned order of Chief Commissioner dated 2L-06-2006 is set aside, and, in consequence thereof, Revision petition will be deemed to have been dismissed and orders passed by District Collector and Commissioner are restored.

CHIEF

M. Abid Khan

Announced in open court on ZC. \.zotA

CHIEF

6/ue4z"2//rt.n d-a&z/ s LLb BLNi L J q Upl oaded By : Engr. Umer Rasheed Dar