TYPING TEST PAGE FOR COMPUTER OPERATOR

The present petitioner has admitted that the respondents are co-owners in the
`Shamilat' land, what was disputed and denied was the possession of the present
respondents over the suit property. The learned counsel of the petitioner pointed
out that though the possession of the present respondents was recorded in the
Revenue Record but the petitioner was in actual possession of the suit property. In
this regard he had moved an application for change in entries of the Revenue Record
to reflect his possession, which was allowed by the Revenue Officer during the
proceedings of the trial and the same has not yet been challenged. He further
argued that the suit of the present respondent was a counterblast to the said
application for correction. The learned counsel of the petitioner, further stated
that the issue for determining the possession over the suit property, more so when
the ownership was not disputed, was the exclusive domain of the revenue authorities
under section 172 and not the civil court under section 52 of the West Pakistan
Land Revenue Act, 1967 ("Act"). The petitioner further claims that he is in
unhindered continuous physical possession of the suit property and had even moved
an application for constitution of a commission before the trial court to ascertain
the actual possession of the parties over the suit property. The learned counsel
argued that rejection of the said application by the Court below had seriously
prejudiced the case of the present petitioner.
The learned counsel for the present respondents rebutting the arguments of
the counsel for the petitioner stated that they are since 1940 recorded in the
Revenue Record to be in possession of the suit property. These longstanding
uninterrupted, unchallenged and continuous entries in their favour give rise to
presumption of truth. The petitioner was required to produce confidence-inspiring
evidence, which he failed to do during the trial. In regard to the application for
constitution of a commission, the learned counsel stated that the matter was a
closed and past transaction as the application for commission was rejected by the
trial court and also by the revision court vide order dated 27-5-2007. Thus this
court in its revisional jurisdiction could not re-agitate the said issue. In regard
to the jurisdiction of the Revenue Officer to change the entries in the Revenue
Record, the learned counsel for the respondents simply stated that though the power
of changing entries in the Revenue Record was vested in the Revenue Officers, in
cases where these entries were long lasting entries, the same could only be changed
by civil courts after giving opportunity to the other side to contest the claim.