GHULAM MUHAMMAD and otherss vs MANZOOR AHMAD and otherss
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a dispute over land ownership and revenue record entries concerning Khasra No. 54 in the Revenue Estate of Targarh, Tehsil Lahore. The respondent, Manzoor Ahmad, had been allotted land and subsequently secured a civil court decree declaring him the owner of the entire 2 Kanals and 15 Marlas comprising Khasra No. 54, after surrendering excess land elsewhere. Despite this decree, the petitioners claimed ownership of a portion of this land based on a prior transfer to their predecessor-in-interest, Muhammad Ibrahim. The core legal question was whether the High Court correctly exercised its writ jurisdiction to enforce the civil court decree and rectify revenue records against the petitioners' claims. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, finding that the transfer of land to the petitioners' predecessor was void as it contradicted the established civil court decree. The Court affirmed that revenue authorities must align their records with final civil court adjudications, and dismissed the petition, finding no merit in the contention that the writ was incompetent.
- Whether revenue authorities are bound to correct land records in accordance with a final civil court decree?
- Can a transfer of land be sustained if it contradicts a prior civil court declaration of ownership?
- Is a writ petition competent to challenge revenue entries that conflict with a settled civil court judgment?
' SYED DEEDAR HUSSAIN SHAH, J.--- Petitioners seek leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 21-11-2000, passed in Writ Petition No,12756 of 1995.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that respondent Manzoor Ahmed was allotted some land including land comprising Khasra Nos.52/1, 54 and 32 in the Revenue Estate of Targarh Tehsil Lahore. This allotment was made in Khata No,18 of RL-II. It is so happened, that out of Khasra No,54 land measuring 1 Kanal, 12 Marlas was sought to be deleted. Manzoor Ahmad respondent moved an application that he should be allowed to retain land in Khasra No,54 and the excess be deducted from his other land. As a result, vide order, dated 25-12-1965, land measuring 18 Marlas from Khasra No,32 and 14 Marlas from Khasra No,52 were deducted. Consequently, excess of 1 Kanal, 12 Marlas having been deducted wherefrom land measuring 2 Kanals, 15 Marlas i,e, full Khasra No,54 was held intact by him. It appears that the land measuring 1 Kanal, 3 Marlas in Khasra No,54 was again allotted to Muhammad Ibrahim predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners. The said land was then sold to one Khurshid Alam. After some time, the respondent instituted a suit wherein he was declared to be the owner of holding of Khasra No,54 measuring 2 Kanals, 15 Marlas.
After that said Khurshid Alam filed a suit claiming himself to be owner as he had purchased land measuring 1 Kanal, 3 Marlas from Ibrahim. This suit was dismissed on 2-10-1974 and the appeal filed by said Khurshid Alam was also dismissed by a learned Additional District Judge, Lahore vide judgment, dated 19-3-1978. One Abdul Sattar, who claimed himself to be the purchaser of land measuring 1 Kanal, 3 Marlas, from Khurshid Alam, also filed a suit, which was dismissed vide judgment, dated 12-3-1980. Therefore, the respondent applied to the Additional Deputy Commissioner (G) to effect mutation in accordance with the decree of the Civil Court. The A.D.C.
(G), Lahore directed Tehsildar, Lahore for correcting the entries of 2 Kanals and 15 Marlas in Khasra No,54. The entries were corrected but at the same time further area of 14 Marlas was deducted.
3. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent filed a writ petition, which was allowed by the learned Single Judge in Chambers of the Lahore High Court directing respondent No,2 to correct the record.
Hence; this petition for leave to appeal.
4. Mr. Ghulam Nabi Bhatti, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioners, inter alia contended that Ibrahim, the predecessor-ininterest of the petitioners, was transferred 1 Kanal, 3 Marlas of land from Khasra No,54, which should be restored; that writ was not competent as there was a finding of fact recorded; that the impugned judgment of the learned High Court is not in consonance with law, therefore, leave to appeal may be granted.
5. We have considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and very minutely perused the material available on the record. The arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners are not tenable. The learned High Court has elaborately dealt with each and every aspect of the case, and there is no misreading or non-reading of the material or misconstruction of law. It would be advantageous to refer here the relevant paragraph of the impugned judgment, which reads as under:-- "(4) A perusal of the record appended with the said report would show that 14 Marlas of land was in fact deducted from 3 Kanals area of Khasra No,52/1 allotted to the petitioner and was transferred to Abdul Hamid. Thereafter another 14 Marlas were taken away and transferred to Ibrahim in the year 1988. His son proceeded to sell the said 14 Marlas during the pendency of this writ petition. A perusal of the documents on record, thus, show that the petitioner was transferred 3 Kanals of land in Khasra No,52/1. After surrender of 14 Marlas from the said Khasra No,52/1, he is owner of 2 Kanals, 6 Marlas of land remaining in the said Khasra. He has been declared to be owner in Khasra No,54 of land measuring 2 Kanals, 15 Marlas by order of the learned Civil Judge on basis of RL.II whereby petitioner surrendered excess area to keep allotment of Khasra No,54 measuring 2 Kanals, 15 Marlas intact in his favor and that was in fact kept in his favor intact. So far as the transfer of land measuring 1 Kanal, 3 Marlas from Khasra No,54 in favor of Ibrahim the predecessor-in-interest of private respondent is concerned, the same obviously is void and has been declared to be so by the Civil Court."
6. In the circumstances, we see no reason to differ with the findings of the learned High Court.
Resultantly, this petition being without merit and substance, is dismissed and leave to appeal declined.