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.
Revision No. 174 of 1961‑62, decided on 4th February 1962, District Rawalpindi.
Revenue Record‑Entries may be rebutted‑Ghair‑mumkin area comprising part of village Shamilat‑Whether can be in cultivating possession of co‑sharer ‑ Punjab Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1887), S. 44.
Muhammad Shafi for Petitioner.
The brief facts of this revision petition are that Nur Ahmad, petitioner who is one of the co‑sharers of the shamilal of village Kotla Kalan, district Rawalpindi, sold a certain field not alleged to be in his occupation, but which is admittedly ghairmumkin part, in favour of his son. The mutation was rejected. The Collector declined to interfere in appeal on the ground that though the entries in the revenue record upto 1960 indicate that the petitioner was in possession of the land in dispute as a co‑sharer it would be contrary to the existing custom and usages on the subject to enter ghairmumkin area comprising a part of the village shamilat as being in cultivating possession of a co‑sharer. For this reason he felt doubtful about the entries. The learned Commissioner has concurred in the opinion of the Collector and has thrown out the revision petition. Nur Ahmad has come up in second revision.
No new argument has been raised before me and the only point that has been urged is that entries in the revenue record carry a presumption of truth and should have been accepted. This is a legal proposition with which I find myself in agreement but the law nowhere lays down that these entries are irrebuttable and must b accepted as sacrosanct by the Revenue Officers. The circumstances of the case are such as to cast grave doubt on the veracity of the entries in view of two circumstances. Firstly, that a part of ghairmumkin shamilat is entered as in cultivating possession of a share‑holder and secondly the share‑holder is selling this land in favour of his own son. In view of these two circumstances I would be reluctant to come to the conclusion that in the exercise of their jurisdiction the revenue officers below have acted with material irregularity. The revision petition accordingly stands dismissed.
K. M. A.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer