Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: NABI BAKHSH VS Respondent: MST. SABUN
P L D 1965 W
P L D 1965 W. P. (Rev.) 41
Before I. U. Khan, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan
NABI BAKHSH‑Petitioner
Versus
Mst. SABUN AND OTHERS‑Respondents
Revision No. 1414 of 1963‑64, decided on 4th May 1965.
Mutation-----
----‑(Clerical mistake)‑Mutation sanctioned in 1941‑42 of alienation of share of party‑Remaining share of such party not stated in next Jamabandi of 1945‑46‑Mistake discovered during Jamabandi of 1951‑52 and corrected by Fard Badar but shares again not worked out correctly by Assistant Collector 2nd Grade Collector correcting such shares in appeal‑Order of Collector upheld in second Revision, being correction of "clerical mistake" No justification for interference with concurrent orders of Collector and Additional Commissioner.
Shaikh Riaz Ahmad for Petitioner.
Ghulam Ali Alvi for Respondents.
ORDER
This is a second revision filed against an order dated the 14th of January 1964, passed by Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Multan, whereby the revision preferred by the petitioner was dismissed.
Briefly, the facts of the case are that Bagh Shah and Sher Shah deceased predecessors‑in‑interest of the respondents alienated the land in question and mutations were sanctioned in 1941‑42. These mutations were given effect to in the Jamabandi of 1945‑46, but inadvertently the Patwari omitted the remaining share of Sher Shah and Bagh Shah. The mistake was discovered at the time of the preparation of the Jamabandi for 1951‑52. A Fard Badr was prepared by the Patwari and correction was sought for. The Assistant Collector, 2nd Grade, approved the Fard Badr on 19‑8‑1962. The petitioner went in appeal to the Collector who examined the case thoroughly and came to the conclusion that the shares had not been worked out correctly by the Patwari or the Assistant Collector, 2nd Grade. He himself worked out the correct shares and accepted the appeal but ordered that the shares worked out by him in para. 8 of his order should be given effect to. The petitioner went in revision before the. Additional Commis sioner but it was dismissed. Hence this second revision.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioner says that the Jamabandi of 1945‑46 was not at variance with the mutation sanctioned in 1941‑42. I am afraid I cannot accept this contention. The mistake was discovered in 1951‑52 and a Fard Badr was prepared this was examined in the first instance by the Assistant Collector, 2nd Grade, but more thoroughly by the learned Collector. It is established that the shares were not properly worked out while incorporating them in the Jamabandi. This was obviously a clerical: mistake and could be corrected by means of a Fard Badr as laid down in para. 7.30 of the Land Record Manual.
In these circumstances; I see no justification for any in terference with the concurrent findings of the learned Collector and the learned Additional Commissioner. The second revision fails and is dismissed hereby.
A. H. Petition dismissed.