Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Civil Appeal No. 22/P of 1975, decided on 8th June, 1983.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Peshawar High Court, dated 8th March, 1976 in R. S. A. 292/1970). .
(a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑
‑‑ Art. 185(3)‑Revenue record‑Clerical mistake‑Leave to appeal granted to consider question whether High Court was justified to assume jurisdiction and rectify clerical mistake particularly when area in dispute consistently recorded in Revenue papers such as alleged by petitioner.
(b) Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act (XLVII of 1958)‑
----S. 10‑Revenue record showing petitioner owner of certain area of land on account of verified claim‑Settlement authority also stating area to be correct‑Held, High Court cannot go into matter and reduce area in rectification of clerical mistake which bad crept into revenue record‑Petitioner, held, entitled to full area of land as recorded in revenue record.
M. Qasim Imam, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellant.
Jalaluddin Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Nur Ahmad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 8th June, 1983.
.‑Mst. Akhtari Khanum got allotted Khasra No. 2366/2 land measuring 31 Kanals and 2 Marlas in village Lund Khowar, Tehsil and District Mardan, against her verified claim, as a‑ share of the non‑Muslim evacuees in a joint Khata part of which wag owned by Muslim owners. The Khata was partitioned vide Mutation No. 4243 the share of the evacuees was mutated in the name of the Central Government which was later allotted to the appellant on 20‑12‑1961.
2. On 29‑5‑1965 the appellant brought a suit against the respondents for the possession of the aforesaid land and recovery of mesne profits which was decreed and she was declared to be entitled to Rs. 100, as mesne profits. This decree for mesne profits was set aside by the District Judge who maintained the decree for possession. Regular Second Appeal was filed by the respondent which was also dismissed by, the learned Peshawar High Court vide the impugned judgment. However, in the concluding portion of the judgment the learned Judge referred to a clerical mistake which had crept into the Revenue Record in regard to the precise area of Khasra No. 2366/2 allotted to the appellant and the learned Judge had found that instead of 21 Kanals and 2 Marlas ‑the appellant was entitled to possess, area was erroneously mentioned as 31 Kanals and 2 Marlas and amended the decree accordingly.
Leave was granted by this Court vide order dated 7‑2‑1975 to consider the question whether the High Court was justified to assume jurisdiction and rectify the so‑called clerical mistake particularly when area under Khasr No. 2366/2 had been consistently recorded in the Revenue papers as 31 Kanals and 2 Marlas.
3. We have heard the learned counsel and examined the record and would observe that the Revenue Record showing the appellant to be owner of 31 Kanals and 2 Marlas on account of her verified claim and that the Settlement authorities had found that the area so recorded in the Revenue record was correct. Hence, the learned High Court Judge could not go into the matter and reduce the area by 10 Kanals. Learned counsel for the respondents has not seriously contested the matter in dispute. We accept the appeal and amend the order of the learned High Court to the extent that the appellant is entitled to 31 Kanals and 2 Merles of land under Khasra No. 2366/2. The appeal is accordingly. disposed with no order as to costs.
M. Z. M. Appeal disposed of.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer