KHAIR MUHAMMAD vs HAYAT KHAN Ss — 2026 CLC 307 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

KHAIR MUHAMMAD VS HAYAT KHAN Ss. 42 & 45---Records---Restriction on variations of entries in records---Long standing entries---Petitioners filed an application in the year 2017 before the Deputy Commissioner challenging two mutations being attested in the year 2012 which essentially changed/altered the earlier entries having been initially incorporated in the year 1919---Said application was rejected being barred by limitation being not maintainable---Constitutional petition was filed as said rejection order was concurred up to Board of Revenue---Held: From perusal of record it is clear that entries in favour of the petitioners were being consistently reflected in the revenue record since 1929-30---Admittedly, said longstanding entries in their favour were altered in the year 2012 on the basis of provisional allotment Form LC-9 dated 21.10.1959 and LC-11 dated nil---In fact, the respondents first entered and attested Mutation No. 3507 on 10.03.2012 in favour of their predecessor and then through inheritance Mutation No. 3553 dated 07.04.2012 became owners themselves---Longstanding entries in the revenue record, particularly those reflected in successive Jama bandis, cannot be altered by revenue authorities in summary manner---No such power was vested in the revenue authorities---The correction of entries envisaged under S.45 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967, has very limited scope and can be invoked only in cases where all the parties consented or where it is supported by a decree or order of the Court binding on all parties---Longstanding entries in revenue record reflected in successive Jama bandis have a presumption of truth and correctness is attached to them, which cannot be dislodged lightly in summary manner---Therefore, the impugned orders passed by the respondents (revenue fora) were against the law resulting in grave miscarriage of justice---High Court set-aside the impugned orders and the matter was remanded to respondent /Deputy Commissioner to decide the matter afresh on merits after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the parties---Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

KHAIR MUHAMMAD vs HAYAT KHAN Ss — 2026 CLC 307 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 CLC