Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: KHAIR DIN VS Respondent: THE STATE
P L D 1961 W
P L D 1961 W. P. (Rev.) 102
Before Nasir Ahmed, Member Board of Revenue,
West Pakistan
KHAIR DIN AND ANOTHER‑Petitioners
versus
THE STATE‑Respondent
Review Side No. 46 of 1960‑61, decided on 11th July 1961, District Montgomery.
(a) Review‑No error or omission patent on face of record No petition for review lies.
(b) Punjab Tenancy Act (XVI of 1887); S. 4 (5)‑Tenant Seri (helper) is not "tenant."
Mahmood Ahmed Qureshi for Petitioners.
ORDER
This order will dispose of the two applications Nos. 46 and 47 of 1960 61, for a review of my order dated 6‑6‑1961 by this order I had rejected the revision applications filed by the two petitioners, and had upheld the orders of the officers below declining to make any changes in the khasra girdawari of Chak No. 87/9L, district Montgomery to which the petitioners belong. The facts seem to be that the landlord employed one tenant to cultivate a square of land, but as the latter could not or did not own two pairs of bullocks necessary for the purpose, he engaged serfs to help him. Under the Land Reforms it is only the tenant entered in the khasra girdawari who is entitled to purchase the surplus surrendered area. An attempt was made by the tenant and his serfs, to get the name of the latter also entered as tenant in which they failed. I had rejected the revision applications on the ground that the petitioners had not adopted the proper remedy as they had neither appealed against the orders of the Deputy Land Commissioner approached the revenue authorities for making a change in the khasra girdawari. It seems that they had approached the Collector but unfortunately a copy of his order was not filed with the petitions. It is now urged that this fact constitutes an error or omission patent on the face of the record and justifies a review.
I am not inclined to accept this contention. But even on merits no case is made out in favour of the petitioners as would be obvious from the factual position stated above. It was the tenant who made his Private arrangement and got additional help to cultivate the land jointly. The helper cannot be termed a co‑tenant under the landlord because the former did not at torn to him nor did the landlord recognize his position as such. I would for these reasons bold that the order` of the officers below is correct and decline to interfere in revision. The petitioners should be informed.
K.M. A. Petition dismissed.