MUHAMMAD SHAFI Versus JAN MUHAMMAD

ORDER

WAHEED AKHTAR ANSARI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL-III).--- This revision petition has been filed against order dated 22.01.2014 passed by learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Multan Division, whereby appeal of the present petitioner was dismissed in limine.

2. Preliminary arguments heard and record perused.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that respondent No.2 submitted an application to learned District Collector, Vehari regarding correction of revenue record claiming that khal is running in khasra No.11/21 to 25, but it was wrongly shown in khasra Nos.16/1 to 5 of chak No.265/WB, Tehsil Mailsi, District Vehari. The said application was accepted on 26.11.2013. The petitioner filed an appeal before learned Additional Commissioner, which was rejected on 22.01.2014. Both the orders are against the law and facts of the case, which are liable to be set aside. According to the map of Moga No.7750/TF Rajbah No.112/12-L, Chak No.265/WB, the khal was duly sanctioned between the khasra Nos.16/1 to 5 and 11/21 to 25. This entry of khal was duly recorded in the register haqaran zamin for the year, 1992-93, 1996-97, 2004 and 2005 and 2008-09. The petitioner has already applied to the irrigation department to restore the khal in khasra numbers sanctioned by the Irrigation Department. The longstanding entries of record cannot be corrected by the revenue officer and learned District Collector has not given an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, while passing the impugned order. The report of the revenue field staff is against the ground reality. While concluding the arguments it was prayed that the revision petition may be accepted.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the khal was running in khasra Nos.11/21 to 25, but it was wrongly shown in khasra No.16/1 to 5 of Chak No.265/WB, Tehsil Mailsi, District Vehari. This entry was wrongly made in the revenue record. The application of the respondent was rightly accepted by learned District Collector after obtaining report from the revenue field staff. The appeal filed against that order was also dismissed by learned Additional Commissioner. The instant revision petition has been filed against the concurrent orders passed by learned lower courts. No irregularity or illegality has been committed in the said orders. On the force of above arguments, it was prayed that the revision petition may be dismissed.

5. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record available in the case file including the impugned orders. Brief facts of the case are that Jan Muhammad etc., the present respondents, filed an application before learned District Collector, Vehari for correction of revenue record pertaining to Khasra No.16/1 to 05, who vide order dated 26.11.2013 allowed correction of entries in the revenue record of khasra No.11/21 to 25 instead of khasra No.16/1 to 5, situated in Chak No.265/WB, Tehsil Mailsi, District Vehari. Feeling aggrieved by the order, present petitioner filed an appeal before learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Multan Division, Multan, which was dismissed in limine. The operative part of the order reads as under:--

"Arguments heard. Record perused. I have also examined the record produced by the Patwari Halqa. It is evident from the report of Irrigation Department, Khaal stands approved and running at the spot in khasra No.11/21 to 25 but it was inadvertently shown against khasra No.16/I to 5 in the revenue record/register girdawari. The District Collector, Vehari, accorded necessary permission for the correction in the revenue record, on the basis of reports of Revenue Field Staff as well as irrigation Department. Under these circumstances, I find no solid ground to interfere with the impugned order which is upheld and the appeal, having no legal force, is hereby dismissed in limine. Status quo granted by this court is vacated".

6. The matter pertains to determination of location of a water channel. Obviously the relevant department, i.e. Irrigation Department is in an exact position to resolve such controversy. The report of the Department was obtained by learned District Collector, Vehari, while passing the impugned order. Learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Multan Division, Multan, has also dismissed the appeal on the same point, which is quite lawful. However, learned District Collector, Vehari, has given permission to review the impugned entry. The petitioner shall have still an opportunity to agitate his grievance before the revenue officer in terms of section 163(2)(c) of Land Revenue Act, 1967, which reads as under:-- "an order shall not be modified or reversed unless reasonable notice, has been given to the parties affected thereby to appear and be heard in support of the order;

Hence, the revision petition is disposed of with the direction to Revenue Officer to observe the requirements of above referred section of law while proceedings under the order of learned District Collector, Vehari, dated 26.11.2013.

HBT/8/Rev. Order accordingly.