Disputed entries, correction of—Such entries could only be corrected by Civil court

P L D 2020 Lahore 478

–Ss. 43(a) & 45—Record of rights/periodical record—Disputed entries, correction of—Such entries could only be corrected through a decree of the competent court and not by an official in the revenue hierarchy.No disputed entry in a record-of-rights or periodical record could be altered, either on ground of mistake or a fraud, except on basis of obvious clerical error or patent facts, requiring no elaborate inquiry for their establishment, thus, the disputed entries having been incorporated in the Revenue Record could only be corrected through a decree of the competent court and not by the order of any of the official in the hierarchy of revenue authorities.
—-Ss. 45 & 53—Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Chapt. VI [Ss.42 & 43]—Revenue courts, jurisdiction of– -Scope—Fraud—Mutation alleged to be outcome of fraud—Disputed questions of fact—Matter concerning revenue entries, which were allegedly the outcome of fraud could not be resolved by Revenue Courts—
Where fraud was alleged, civil suit in terms of S.42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 read with S.9 of C.P.C. was to be filed and the Revenue Courts lacked jurisdiction—Disputed questions of fact and allegation of fraud regarding cancellation of mutation could not be decided by the Revenue Courts—In such-like cases, the parties ought to approach the Civil Courts. Whenever complicated question of fact was involved, the exclusive jurisdiction vested in the Civil Court to decide the same Longstanding entries qua the allegation of fraud should be dealt by the Civil Court because Revenue Courts had no jurisdiction to interfere in such like matters. Mutation being summary proceedings Revenue authorities could not clinch such complicated matter in summary proceedings. At the time of attestation of mutation, no detailed evidence was recorded by the Revenue Officers and it was otherwise the function of the Civil Court to decide matters after framing of issues and recording of evidence of both the parties. If a person considered himself aggrieved by any entry in records of rights or in a periodical record and he
was of the view that such entries were the product of fraud, which were even longstanding, then his remedy laid in filing a civil suit as per mandate of S.53 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967. Where fraud was alleged, civil suit in terms of section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 read with section 9 of CPC was to be filed and the Revenue Courts lacked jurisdiction. Dispute with regard to entry in the record of rights or in periodical record had to be taken to the court of competent civil jurisdiction. Disputed questions of fact and allegation of fraud regarding cancellation of mutation could not be decided by the Revenue Courts, including the Collector and the Member Judicial, (Provincial Board of Revenue) proceedings before whom were summary in nature, and in such-like cases, the parties ought to approach the Civil Courts

Post excerpts