Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 1579 of 1980, decided on 10^th March, 1981.

(On appeal from judgment dated 23-11-1980 of the Lahore High Court in W. P. No. 1558 of 1980).

----S. 10-State land-Grant of lease-Grant of land claimed on ground of petitioner's name having been inserted in Jamabandi as a cultivator of land in dispute-Jamabandi in question not relied upon by petitioner in High Court-Presumption as to correctness of Jamabandi standing rebutted by evidence of forgery in relevant Khasra, Girdawari-Question of fact to be determined by competent authority: whether petitioner in cultivating possession of land as a tenant at a particular point of time-Such question to be answered more, appropriately by contemporaneous document, Khasra Girdawan Claim of petitioner for grant of land as actual cultivator in circumstances rightly rejected by lower Court and petition for leave to appeal liable to be dismissed.

Rana Abdur Rahim Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbool Ahmad Kadri, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 10^th March, 1981.

The facts giving rise to this petition are that on 24-4-1971 the petitioner was allotted the land in dispute under a fifteen years lease scheme. The eligibility for the grant of lease under this scheme was that the applicant was an actual cultivator of land during the harvests, namely Kharif 1969, to Kharif 1970. The grant in favour of the petitioner was cancelled by the Collector vide his order dated 23-6-1976 on the ground that the petitioner was not such a cultivator and the entry in the Khasra Girdawari showing him as cultivator had been manipulated by the revenue staff unlawfully and that the petitioner was, in fact, a Chaukidar working at Sikhanwali quarry. In appeal the Commissioner set aside the order on technical ground and remanded the case, but the Collector, on remand, maintained the cancellation of the grant made in favour of the petitioner. In further appeal before the Additional Commis sioner, the petitioner succeeded, but that order was, in second appeal before the Board of Revenue, reversed and the order of the Collector, canceling the grant, was maintained, vide order dated 15-1-1980.

We find from the impugned judgment of the High Court that the learned Single Judge not only found that it was not open to him to interfere with the finding of fact arrived at by the Revenue Authorities on the question of forgery, but took pains to summon the original record to satisfy himself as to the correctness of this finding. In dealing with this matter the learned Judge observed as follows:-

"First of all, it may be noted that a finding of fact has been given by the Revenue Authorities regarding the entry. The decision of the Collector that the entries in Khasra Girdawan is a foregary has been confirmed by the learned Member, Board of Revenue. This finding of fact cannot be challenged in a writ petition. 1t may also be observed that the original record produced in Court today sufficiently testifies to the correctness of the finding. The record also shows that the petitioner was mentioned as being in occupation of a piece of land along with the owner only for the period of 1969-70. There is no entry of his possession either before or after that period. There is no corresponding entry in the Roznamcha Waqiati. This has also been shown that the petitioner was working as a Chowkidar in the Sikhanwali quarry. Considering these facts one does not have to go far to come to a conclusion that the petitioner was not a cultivator. Since he was not a cultivator he was not entitled to the lease of land which was meant only for genuine cultivators. The action taken by the Collector which was subsequently confirmed by the learned Member Board of Revenue was perfectly justified in law and no objection can be taken to it. A forgery is a forgery and no premium can be given to a forgery or its beneficiary."

Before us, the limited contention that was raised in support of this petition was that the Jamabandi for the year 1969-70 did show the petitioner as cultivator. This Jamabandi was not relied upon by the petitioner in the high Court Furthermore, the question of fact to be determined by the competent authority was whether the petitioner was in cultivating possession of land as a tenant at a particular point of time, which could be answered more appropriately by contemporaneous document, Khasra Girdawari given otherwise, the presumption as to correctness of the Jamabandi entry stood rebutted by the evidence of forgery in the relevant Khasra Girdawari.

There is, therefore, no merit in this petition and it is accordingly dismissed.

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.