Find a Lawyer

Revision No. 172 of 1963‑64, decided on 30th April 1965.

O. 1, r. 10‑Parties to case‑Only one, of several appellants having failed in appeal before Collector, filing revision before Additional Commissioner, not impleading his co‑appellants below but making a mention of them in memorandum of Revision‑Such co‑appellants, held, could not be impleaded as co‑petitioners in Second Revision petition.

Khairpur Division case)‑Rival parties claiming to be entered as khatedars‑Party in possession not able to prove in which capacity they were in possession, of land in dispute and further producing no evidence, not preferred over party producing documentary and oral evidence‑Concurrent findings of three Revenue Officers below upheld‑Request for production of evidence at Second Revision stage declined.

Abdul Qadir for P4ptitioners.

This is a second revision filed against an order dated the 17th of April 1963, passed by Commissioner, Khairpur, whereby the revision preferred by the petitioner was dismissed.

The facts of the case are that, on 15‑9‑1961, the Mukhtiarkar of Nara ordered that the name of the respondent be entered as khatedar instead of the petitioners. Aggrieved by these orders, the petitioners filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner but it was rejected. They then went in revision to the Commissioner, Khairpur but it was also dismissed. Hence this second revision.

Before the Commissioner, only Khabbar had filed the revision. It is true that other petitioners were mentioned in the body of the memorandum but they cannot be impleaded as parties at the second revisional stage.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. His main contention is that the lower revenue authorities did not give any importance to the fact of possession. It is true that the petitioners are in possession but the question is in what capacity. There mere fact of possession will not entitle them to be regarded as khatedars unless it is proved otherwise. The respondent was able to produce oral as well as documentary evidence but the learned counsel for the petitioners says that the documentary evidence is not authentic. The position is that while there was some evidence in favour of the respondent, there was none to support the case of the petitioners.

The learned counsel for the petitioners wishes to produce fresh evidence before me, but this is not the stage at which such a request can be allowed.

In these circumstances, I see no justification for interfering with the concurrent findings of the three Revenue Officers below. The second revision fails and is dismissed hereby.

A. H. Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.