ATTA MUHAMMAD vs Sahibzada MANZOOR AHMAD Through Legal Heirs And Other
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by a defendant against the dismissal of his civil revision by the High Court, which originated from a property dispute concerning the possession of land in the Shamlat Deh. The core legal question involves the evaluation of revenue records, the extent of permissible possession of Shamlat land in accordance with an owner's share or holding, and the legal effect of a mutation attested pursuant to orders of higher authorities under the Land Revenue Act. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the contentions raised regarding the selective reliance on revenue entries by the courts below and the interpretation of statutory provisions concerning mutations require deeper examination. The principle laid down is that revenue record entries must be considered comprehensively, and mutations implemented pursuant to higher authorities' orders warrant scrutiny regarding the effect of parties' absence during attestation.
- Can revenue record entries be selectively relied upon by courts while ignoring entries in favor of the opposing party?
- Whether an owner of Shamlat land can retain possession in excess of their share according to Hasab Rasad-Khewet?
- What is the legal effect of a mutation attested in the absence of a party when such mutation is implemented pursuant to orders of higher authorities?
- Section 42(7), Land Revenue Act
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, C J.---Leave to appeal is being sought by a defendant against the dismissal by the High Court of his civil revision which had arisen out of a dispute between the parties regarding possession of land in the Shamlat Deh.
2. The suit of the respondent's side, for declaration and permanent injunction to the effect that the plaintiff was owner of the Deh and that the suit land being Shamlat, his possession thereof could not be interfered with till partition, was dismissed. The plaintiffs -appeal was allowed. His suit was decreed. And the petitioner's civil revision having been dismissed on the finding that the plaintiff was in possession of disputed land, leave to appeal has now been sought.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that while giving some importance to a part of the Revenue Record which went in respondent's favour the learned two Courts below ignored those entries which were in favour of the petitioner. He has also contended that while according to the record of rights the owners in the Deh were owners in Shamlat in accordance With their other land holding Hasab, Rasad-Khewet, an owner could retain possession only in accordance with his share.
4. The respondent claimed possession over a much bigger disputed area. He also referred to the provisions of subsection (7) of section 42 of the Land Revenue Act to contend that the mutation in favour of the petitioner regarding Tanazia Kasht could not have been ignored merely on the ground of the absence of the respondent's side; because as he contended, the mutation was being attested as a result of orders by the higher authorities. They were passed after hearing them and the lower authorities were only implementing the orders of the high authorities. In that context he further argued that it being only the implementation of the orders of the higher authorities the absence of the respondent's side at the time of the attestation of the disputed mutation, could not have been given any importance.
5. These and other questions raised in these petitions require examination. Leave to appeal is accordingly granted. Security Rs.5,000.