Land Revenue Act, 1967

S. 9 — See West Pakistan land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967), Chap. XI [Ss.135 to 150]. Zameer Begum v. Shakeela Begum 2012 SCR 29
Ss. 53 & 172(2)(vi) — The declaration regarding the shares of the plaintiffs is not barred under section 172(2)(vi) of the Land Revenue Act — Section 53 of the Revenue Act gives right to a person considering himself an aggrieved by an entry in the record of rights or any periodical record, to institute a civil suit for the redressal of his grievance under the provisions of section 42 of the Specific Relief Act; joint reading of the section 53 and section 172 (2)(vi) of the Revenue Act makes it amply clear that the suit filed by the plaintiffs-respondents is triable by the civil Court, except to issue direction to the revenue authorities to correct the entries in the revenue record — If one of the reliefs sought by the respondents cannot be given to them due to lack of jurisdiction, it cannot be said that jurisdiction of civil Court is also barred so far as other reliefs are concerned — Only the relief regarding the correction of the entries in the revenue record is barred under section 172(2)(vi) of the Revenue Act. M. Akbar and others v. Fateh M. and others 2000 SCR 211 (A)
—-Sections, 53. 172 — the jurisdiction of the Civil Court with regard to the correction of entries in the record of rights, periodical record or Register of mutations made by a Revenue Officer in performance of his duties under law without touching or affecting the rights of the parties in the land is ousted, but whenever such an entry in the record of rights, periodical record or Register of mutations affects or infringes the right of a person, such a person feeling aggrieved by a correction of such entries can approach the Civil Court for declaration under Section 53 of the land Revenue Act. Forests Department & others v. Muhammad Farooq & others 2022 SCR 1291 (B)
—Section, 53— Correction of entry in Record of Rights— a suit by a person considering himself aggrieved— by an entry in the Record of Rights —Held: The bare reading of the above coated provision reveals that where the suit was not a suit for mere correction of an entry in a Record of Rights, annual record or register of mutations, but a suit by a person considering himself aggrieved as to a right of which he professed to be in possession by an entry in the Record of rights, for declaration of such right, he may institute a suit for declaration. Further held: In such like suit, only Civil Court is empowered to try the same under the abovementioned provision and resolved the controversy after recording the evidence. Forests Department & others v. Muhammad Farooq & others 2022 SCR 1291(C)
—Section, 53— correction of entry in Record of Rights — and factual controversy regarding the title of the case —originally, the suit of the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs and later on the entries in the Record of Rights were made. The proper course for the plaintiffs was to file a suit in the Civil Court as their valuable rights had been infringed. Even otherwise, S. 53 of the Land Revenue Act, is available to meet such like eventuality. As both the parties were clamming the ownership in the land in question, therefore, it cannot be said that this was a case of mere correction of the revenue record. The factual controversy regarding the title was involved in the case, therefore, the proper course for the plaintiffs was to file a suit in Civil Court. Forests Department & others v. Muhammad Farooq & others 2022 SCR 1291 (D)
S. 141 — Partition of joint holding by Revenue Authority — Challenge to — Held: High Court has rightly concluded that land was rightly partitioned according to fractional shares of parties in their joint holdings in both villages. M. Khaild v. M. Akram and others 2001 SCR 185 (B)
S. 141 — Partition of land — Deficiency in share — Held: Revenue Authority to see as to out of which of the Survey numbers the deficiency in the share of a co-sharer was to be made up. Muhammad Khaild & 3 others v. Muhammad Akram and 10 others 2001 SCR 185 (C)
S. 141 — Partition — Regular partition by Revenue Authority had been passed before the death of predecessor-in-interest of the appellant — Not necessary to implead his legal representatives in the partition proceedings. M. Khaild & 3 others v. M. Akram and 10 others 2001 SCR 185 (D)
—Section 141 —partition proceedings—question of title— as per statutory provisions, if at the time of partition/division of any property the question of title arises, the property cannot be partitioned until the same is resolved first—- the question of title means a dispute as to ownership of the property and once a plea of title is taken up by any of the parties to a partition proceeding, the issue has to be determined by a competent Court and it no longer remains in the jurisdiction of a Revenue Officer to say that this is a false plea— there must be finding of a competent Court on the issue of title. Muhammad Javaid Khan & 2 others versus Muhammad Nasar Khan & 6 others 2021 SCR 638 (A)
U/S. 172 — The jurisdiction of civil Courts in cases where the correction of any entry in record of rights or in the periodical record or register of mutations is concerned has been excluded — These matters are within exclusive competence of the revenue officers. Held: The suit filed by the appellant was not maintainable before a civil Court. Sr. Khan v. Ghulam H. 2003 SCR 77 (A)
—Section 172— Correction in the entries of revenue record—jurisdiction of Revenue Courts—Held: It may be stated that according to S. 172 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967, the correction in the entries of revenue record is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Revenue Courts. Further held that the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts is excluded in the matters enumerated therein, i.e., the correction of entries in the record of rights, periodical record of register of mutations. Forests Department & others v. Muhammad Farooq & others 2022 SCR 1291 (A)