The Federal Constitutional Court has held that long-standing revenue entries cannot be altered through summary correction proceedings where the proposed change involves disputed questions of title, possession or proprietary rights.
Long-standing revenue entries cannot be altered summarily to decide disputed rights: FCC
ISLAMABAD, Sep 29 (APP): The Federal Constitutional Court has held that long-standing revenue entries cannot be altered through summary correction proceedings where the proposed change involves disputed questions of title, possession or proprietary rights.
A three-member bench comprising Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Justice Aamer Farooq and Justice Syed Arshad Hussain Shah gave the ruling while allowing an appeal filed by Muhammad Ashraf Rana and others against a Lahore High Court judgment.
The court observed that Section 166 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967, provides a limited power to correct clerical or arithmetical mistakes and accidental slips or omissions. It does not authorize reopening concluded settlement proceedings or determining disputed proprietary or possessory rights under the guise of correcting a revenue record.
The bench noted that the disputed revenue entry had originated during settlement operations in 1971-72 and remained unchanged for about 44 years. Whether the alteration made during the settlement was unauthorized and what legal consequences flowed from subsequent entries and possession required proper inquiry, it added.
The court further held that revenue entries do not by themselves confer title, though they carry a rebuttable presumption of correctness. Where competing claims of title or possession are involved, such questions require adjudication by a competent civil court.
The court also found that the petitioners, whose possession was affected by the proposed alteration, had not been given an opportunity of hearing. The proceedings therefore could not be treated as a mere correction of the revenue record.
Setting aside the Lahore High Court judgment, the FCC restored the March 15, 2018 order of the Board of Revenue, Punjab.
The court clarified that its judgment did not confer title upon the petitioners or legitimize any encroachment, and that substantive questions concerning title, possession and rights in the disputed land could be determined by the competent forum in accordance with law.
