Find a Lawyer

Appellate Side No. 60 of 1959‑60, decided on 24th May 1960, District Rawalpindi.

may be treated as revision.

S. 35 Patwari changing entries in Khasra Girdawari‑S. 34 (5) not com plied with‑New entries should be disregarded.

Kh. Abdur Rahim for Appellant No. 1.

Rafiq Ahmed for Respondents.

It was conceded at the outset that no point of law is involved and it was prayed that this may be treated as a petition in revision. This prayer was accepted.

The dispute relates to Khasra Girdawari entries for Rabi 59, relating to Khasra No. 1765, village Kotha Kallan, Tehsil Rawalpindi. The entries previous to the disputed entries show two of (sic) that the petitioners were in possession of the Khasra number. The Patwari changed the entries and showed that the Khasra nut4ber was in possession of the village] proprietors, This change was admittedly disputed. The case is governed by section 35 of the Land Revenue Act which lays down that, if the matter is undisputed, the entries are made by the Patwari, but if it is disputed the procedure prescribed by subsection (5) of section 34 is to be adopted. As the Patwari did not adopt that procedure, the action taken by him was ultra vires. The respon dents relied on the observations made by the Revenue Officer in Mutation No. 56, to the effect that the Patwari could make certain alterations. No authority for these observations could be shown. The action of the Patwari is to be governed by the Act and the rules and not by anything which is not in consonance with them. In view of what is stated above, it is clear that the order of the Collector that the amendment which was made by the Patwari without following the procedure prescribed by law should be disregarded was justified. The result is that the petition is allowed and the order passed by the learned Collector is restored.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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