Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: ALLAH YAR AND OTHERS VS Respondent: MUHAMMAD HASSAN AND OTHERS
P L D 1966 W
P L D 1966 W. P. (Rev.) 164
Before I. U. Khan, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan
ALLAH YAR AND OTHERS‑Petitioners
versus
MUHAMMAD HASSAN AND OTHERS‑Respondents
Revision No. 1958 of 1963‑64, decid8d on 10th November 1965.
Mutation ‑ Possession‑Uncultivated land ordered by Collec tor to be shown in possession of owners‑Order, held, to be right and just.
S. M. Zamir Zaidi for Petitioners. Mian Faqir Muhammad for Respondents.
ORDER
This is a second revision filed against an order dated the 13th of January 1964, passed by Additional Commissioner (Revenue), who while exercising powers of a Commissioner, rejected the first revision preferred by the petitioners.
Briefly the facts of the case are that there were some disputes about the actual cultivation of certain Khasra numbers and the Assistant Collector 2nd grade entered mutations in respect of dispute about cultivation and sanctioned them according to the result of his enquiries. The petitioners filed two appeals before the Revenue Assistant who dealt with them under the powers of the Collector with which he had been invested. The parties with their counsel were heard and the Collector also visited the spot. He found that only a portion of the land in dispute measuring 11 Kanals and 6 Marlas was under the cultivation of the respondents. The rest was uncultivated. He partially accepted the appeals and directed that, in respect of 11 Kanals and 6 Marlas of land in Khasra No. 563, the entry should be about the cultivating possession of the respondents and the rest of the area should be shown as in the possession of the owners. The petitioners filed two appeals before the Additional Commissioner who treated them as revisions and rejected them. Hence this second revision.
I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. The learned Collector made a very just decision. So far as the cultivated land was concerned, he ordered that the entry should be as in the possession of the respondents. The rest of the land, which was uncultivated, could not be in the exclusive possession of any co‑sharer. It was, therefore, rightly ordered that it should be shown as Maqbooza Malikan (as in the possession of the owners).
In these circumstances, I see no justification for any interference. The revision fails and is dismissed hereby.
K. M. A. Revision dismissed.