Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: Messrs STARCO. LIMITED VS Respondent: SINDH AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH FARM, TANDO JAM through Director Finance, and others
Court Name: Board of Revenue Judge(s): Muhammad Qasim Lashari Title:Messrs STARCO. LIMITED vs SINDH AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH FARM, TANDO
JAM through Director Finance, and others Case No.: Appeal No,SROA-57 of 2002 Date of Judgment:2003-07-24 Reported As: 2005 CLC 235 Result: Appeal dismissed Judgment ORDER ' This is an appeal filed on 8-7-2002 against the order dated 11-6-2002 of the learned Executive District Officer (Revenue) Hyderabad which he passed on reference received by him from the Additional Secretary (Revenue, Board of Revenue, Sindh vide his letter No,8/62/2001/Rev.I(ii)098, dated 18-10-2001 initiating suo motu proceedings under section 164 of the Sindh Land Revenue Act, 1967, whereby he set aside order, dated 11-4-2001 of the then Assistant Commissioner, Taluka Hyderabad and cancelled, entry No,63 dated 16-11-1992 respecting S. Nos.340 and 341 of Deh Hotki, Taluka Hyderabad. A. Previous history/background of the case 2. The chequered history/background of the case culminating in the papers available on record is that in the year 1953, under the order/challan No,173, dated 23-1-1953 of the then Assistant Collector Hala, several survey numbers of Deh Hotki, Tippa Tando Jam, Taluka and District Hyderabad owned by Sindh Agricultural Research Farm Tando Jam were amalgamated and given new survey numbers 387, 388 and 389 and such Ghat Wadh Form No,13, dated 27-5-1953 (verified on 9-6- 1953) was issued by the Revenue Surveyor "A" Northern work party No,2. The composition of new S.Nos.387, 388 and 389 is given hereunder:-- (A) Following old survey numbers (within brackets is given the area in acres) were amalgamated/merged and were given new survey number 387, admeasuring 262-02 Acres:-- 124/1 (2-38) 124/2(3-29) 124/3, 4 (8-00) 125/1 (3-21) 125/2,3 (8-00) 128/1 (2-07) 128/2 (4-34) 129/1 (205) 129/2 (2-26) 129-2-A (0-2) 132 (1-34) 158/1 (1-38)
---
## Page 2
158/2 (4-00) 158/3 (4-1) 159/1 (3-00) 159/2 (3-22) 159/3 (3-32) 159/4 (4-00) 160/1 to 4 (16-00) 161/1-4 (4-00) 161/2 (3-25) 161/3 (3-17) 161/4 (4-00) 162/1 (3-35) 162/2 (3-24) 162/3 (3-30) 162/4 (4-1) 163/1 (1-30) 163/2 (2-5) 163/1 (1-28) 163/4 (2-33) 164/1 (3-4) 164/2 (4-03) 181/1 (0-27) 182/1 (4-04) 183/1 (4-16) 183/2 (3-18) 184/1,2 (8-00) 184/3 (3-23) 185/1, 2 (8-00) 185/3 (3-7) 185/4 (4-4) 186/2 93-36) 187/1 (1-38) 186/3 (4-00) 186/4 (3-35) 186/1 (2-19) 187/2 (4-5) 200/1 (4-01) 201/1 (3-32) 201/2 (2-35) 202/1 (2-31) 335 (4-09) 336 (8-30) 337 (2-28) 338 (5-5) 339 (0-05) 340 (6-27) 341 (2-14) 342 (4-35) 346 (5-32) 347 (2-18) 348 (6-37
(b) Following old survey numbers were amalgamated/merged and were given new survey number 388, admeasuring 743-04 acres:-- 163/5 (1-05) 164/4 (108) 165/3 (4-19) 178/1 (2-25) 179/1 (4-00) 179/2 (3-6) 179/3, 4 (8-00) 180/1 (3-25) 180/2 (3-33) 180/3, 4(8-00) 181/2 (2-15) 181/3 (3-10) 181/4 (3-31) 181/5 (2-16) 182/2 (2-00) 182/3 (4-00) 182/4 (4-1) 183/3 (3-27) 183/4 (2-31) 184/4 (2-31) 200/2 (3-13) 201/3 (4-09) 201/4 (3-8) 202/2 (3-10) 202/3 (3-39) 202/4 (3-38) 203/1 (2-35) 203/2 (1-38) 203/3 (1-32) 203/4 (3-34) 203/5 (1-31) 203/6 (1-39) 204/1 (3-33) 204/2 (3-31) 204 (3-29) 204/4 (3-31) 205/1 (3-27) 205/2 (3-34) 205/3 (3-33) 205/4 (3-21) 206/1 (3-29) 206/2 (3-29) 206/3 (4-00) 206/4 (3-39) 207/1 (3-35) 207/2 (3-35) 207/3, 4 (8-00) 208/1 (3-35) 208/2 (1-35) 208/2-A (1-31) 208/3 (3-24) 208/4 (2-00) 208/4-A (1-31) 209/1 (3-16) 209/2 (3-12) 209/3 (4-00)
---
## Page 3
209/4 (3-30) 226/1 to 4 (16-00) 227/1 (3-19) 227/2 (3-36) 227/3 (4-00) 227/4 (3-35) 228/1 (4-00) 22812 (2-00) 228/2-A (1-21) 228/3 (3-37) 228/4 (1-31) 228/4-A (1-28) 229/1, 2 (8-00) 229/3 (3-30) 229/4 (3-30) 230/1 (3-39) 230/2 (4-00) 230/3 (3-39) 230/4 (4-00) 231/1 (4-00) 231/2 (1-35) 231/2-A (1-27) 231/3 (3-39) 231/4 (1-29) 231/4-A (1-35) 232/1 to 4(16-00) 233/1 (3-37) 233/2-3 (3-36) 233/3, 4 (8-00) 234/1 (3-35) 234/2, 3 (8-00) 234/4 (3-35) 235/1 (2-30) 235/2, 3 (8-00) 235/4 (4-1) 236/1 (1-6) 236/2(0-36) 236/3 (0-36) 236/4 (3-36) 236/5 (1-35) 237/1 (1-1) 237/2 (3-00) 237/3 (3-24) 381 (2-28) 238/2 (2-18) 238/3 (1-24) 243/1 (2-15) 243/2 (3-36) 238/4 (209) 243/3 (2-2) 244/1 (1-10) 244/2 (2-9) 244/3 (2-00) 244/4 (3-28) 244/5 (1-28) 244/6 (1-39) 245/1 (4-00) 245/2 (3-39) 245/3 (3-27) 245/4 (1-30) 246/1 (3-39) 246/2 to(12-00) 12 247/1 (3-35) 247/2, 3 (8-00) 247/4 (3-35) 248/1, 2 (8-00) 248/3 (3-39) 248/4(3-38) 249/1 (4-00) 249/2 (3-36) 249/3 (3-27) 249/4 (3-38) 250/1 (3-35) 250/2 (3-37) 250/3 (3-29) 250/4 (3-12) 251/1 (3-21) 251/2 (3-30) 251/3 (4-00) 251/4 (3-35) 252/1 (3-37) 252/2 (3-37) 252/3, 4 (8-00) 253/1 (3-37) 253/2 (3-37) 253/2 (3-37) 253/3 (3-34) 253/4 (4-00) 254/1, 2 (8-00) 254/3 (2-34) 254/4 (2-36) 255/1, 2 (8-00) 255/3 (2-5) 255/4 (2-22) 277 (1-13) 278/1 (4-00) 278/2 (4-04) 279/1 (3-35) 279/3 (2-1) 279/4 (3-5) 280/1 (3-13) 280/2 (3-32) 280/3 (3-16) 280/4 (3-39) 281/1 (1-38) 281/2 (1-36) 281/3 (3-38) 281/4 (2-00) 281/5 (2-00) 281/6 (3-36) 282/1 (3-37) 282/2 (3-32) 282/3 (3-36) 282/4 (3-20) 282/5 (0-20) 283/1 (3-00) 283/2 (3-2) 283/3 (3-38) 284/1 (3-36) 284/2 (4-02) 284/3 (4-14) 285/1 (4-00) 285/2 (1-38) 285/3 (3-17) 286 (3-17) 287 (1-13) 288 (0-13) 289 (0-22) 290 (5-15) 291 (1-33) 292 (1-19) 293/1 (4-17) 293/2 (1-29) 293/2-A (0-11) 293/3 (1-30) 293/4 (4-2) 293/5 (1-17) 293/6 (1-35) 294/1 (3-34) 294/2 (3-34) 294/3 (1-5) 294/4 (2-39) 295/1 (4-8) 295/2 (0-27) 382 (1-12) 279/2 (4-0) 278/3 (1-14)
(c) Survey numbers 239/3 (1-03), 239/4 (3-37), 239(2-5) and 242(1-07) were amalgamated/merged and were given new survey number 389. 3. The provision of amalgamation existed in Rule 11 of the Land Revenue Rules, 1921, which contemplated that any survey number of sub-division of a survey number may be amalgamated with any other terminus survey number with the sanction of the Collector and upon the application of the holder, whenever all the parcels of land proposed for amalgamation are held by the same holder upon the same tenure. Sub-rule (3) of the said Rule 11 further provided that when such
---
## Page 4
amalgamation is effected, the two or more portions of land shall become one entry. In the land records, bearing the same distinguishing number as the first in series of the amalgamated number. It further laid down that any boundary marks placed between the amalgamated holdings shall be removed and the village map be corrected accordingly. 4. The order of the then Collector respecting amalgamation of above survey numbers and the order/challan No,173, dated 23-1-1953 of the then Assistant Collector Hala, at present, are not traceable. Similarly, the Sindh Agriculture Research Farm Authorities (Sindh. Agriculture University Tando Jam) are unable to produce the documents whereby they have acquired the ownership of the land (whether by acquisition, transfer from the Government or purchased through private negotiations etc.) mentioned in Ghat Wadh Form No,13, dated 20-7-1953 and Entry No,2, dated 6-6- 1956 of V.F. VII (old) excepting the Notification No,4344-F/59, dated 17-9-1952 of the Revenue Department published in Sindh Government Gazette (Extraordinary) Part I, dated 25-9-1952 at pages Nos.612, 613 and copy of award passed under section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act by the then Deputy Collector and Land Acquisition Officer Hala vide letter dated 10-11-1953, according to which old S. Nos.129/1, 132, 158/1, 158/2, 158/3, 159/1, 159/2, 159/3, 159/4, 160, 161/1,161/4, 182/1, 183/1, 183/2, 184/1, 184/2, 183/3, 184/4, 185/1, 185/2, 185/3, 185/4, 186/2, 186/3, 187/1, 187/2, 200/1, 200/2, 201/1, 201/2, 201/3, 201/4, 202/1, 202/2, 202/3, 202/4, 203/1,203/2, 203/3, 203/4, 203/5, 204/1, 204/2, 204/3,.204/4, 205/1, 205/2,-205/3, 205/4, 206/1, 206/2, 206/3, 206/4, 207/1, 207/2, 207/3, 207/4, 208/1, 208/4, 208/4-A, 227/1, 230/1, 231/1, 231/2, 231/2-A, 231/3, 231/4, 231/4-A, 232, 233/2, 233/3, 248/2, 249/1, 249/2, 250/1, 250/2, are acquired by them through land acquisition proceedings. For the rest of the land/survey numbers, their version is that presently, the concerned file is not traceable and they are putting their all possible efforts to trace out the file/papers or obtain copies of the relevant documents from other offices/departments. In such a case, it is provided in Article 129, illustration (e) of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 that a Court may presume that judicial and official acts have been regularly performed. Moreover, it is laid down in section 52 of the Sindh Land Revenue Act, 1967 (in the Sindh Land Revenue Code, 1879, it was -section 135-J) that an entry in the record- of-rights shall be presumed to be true until the contrary is proved or a new entry is lawfully substituted therefore. Burden of proof, therefore, does not lie upon the university. 5. After the amalgamation/merger of aforesaid various survey numbers into three new survey numbers 387, 388 and 389, the Deh map as well as survey map were corrected and the boundary marks placed between the amalgamated holdings viz. Old S. Nos. Were removed/erased from these maps and new S. Nos. Were inserted therein. Though the survey numbers with area have been written very carefully and cautiously even then if any mistake or error from accidental slip or omission of survey numbers or area etc. Is discovered at any stage, it is subject to correction at any time under section 166 of the Sindh Land Revenue Act, 1967. 6. Ghat Wadh Form is a part of village Form No,1 (Register of land) 'mentioned in manual of village Revenue Accounts for Sindh and it is prescribed vide clause (xx) of Rule 72 of the Sindh Land Revenue Rules, 1968 as amended by the Board of Revenue, Sindh vide its Notification No,1-46-78- Rev.I(ii)/1687, dated 29-9-1981' published in the Sindh Government Gazette, Part IV-A, at pages 4 to 81. This form is prescribed under section 39(2)(iii)(d) of the Sindh Land Revenue Act, 1967 as amended vide section 2 of the Sindh Land Revenue (Amendment) Ordinance, 1980 read with section 55 of the said Act of 1967. Having been prescribed by the Board of Revenue under section 39(2)(iii)(d) read with section 55 of the said Act of 1967, the Ghat Wadh Form is the part of record of rights. As laid down in paragraph 2 of the remarks of Village Form No,1 and the instructions for filing Ghat Wadh Form contained in the Manual of Village Revenue Accounts of Sindh, a Ghat Wadh Form is to be prepared when there is any alteration or appropriation of area and the land is measured. Since it is a part of record of rights it can safely be relied upon so far its contents are concerned. As mentioned in Column No,8 of the Ghat Wadh From No,13, the Ghat Wadh Form had been prepared
---
## Page 5
of the land under the Agricultural Research Farm and entered as per the order/challan No,173, dated 23-10-1953 of the Assistant Commissioner, Hala. It was explained by the representative of the Land Record Officer that though the original order/challan No,173, dated 23-10-1953 is presently not traceable but it is quite obvious from its contents, that the Ghat Wadh Form No,13 was prepared because the old numbers pertaining to Agriculture Research Farm were amalgamated and new survey numbers were formed. 7. Based on the above Ghat Wadh Form Entry No,2, dated 6-6-1956 was effected in V.F.VII of Deh Hotki wherein all those new survey numbers 387, 388 and 389 with the details of old survey numbers (total area 1016-0 acres) merged therein were entered in the name of Agricultural Research Farm Tandojam. 8. Subsequent to the above Ghat Wadh Form, it is available on the record that following Ghat Wadh Forms had also been issued till date:-- (i) S. No,346 (5-32) entered in Ghat Wadh Form No,13 was resurveyed and divided into Survey Nos.346/1, 346/2 and 346/3 formed with actual area of 3-10 acres. Such area under the order No,4164 dated 22-7-1957 of the then Deputy Collector Hala, was entered in the Ghat Wadh Form vide Entries Nos.15 and 16, dated 19-8-1957 in the name of Sindh Agriculture Farms Tandojam. (ii) Under the orders of the then Commissioner, Hyderabad vide No,4344-F/50, dated 8-6-1961 Survey Nos.209/1 (3-16 acres), 209/2 (3-12 acres), 209/4 (3-30 acres), 226/1 to 4 (16-00 acres), 255/1, 2 (8-00 acres), 255/3 (2-05 acres) and 255/4 (2-22 acres) were revived and after deducting an area of 0-36 of Kharabo were re-entered in Ghat Wadh Form vide Entry No,18, dated 25-9-1961 in the same name of Sindh Agriculture Research Farm Tandojam. (iii) Vide Entry No,19, dated 18-11-1962, of Ghat Wadh Form under the orders bearing No,G/8922 dated 13-11-1962 of the Director Settlement Survey and Land Record Hyderabad, Survey Nos.347 (2- 16 acres) and 348 (6-37 acres) of Deh, Hotki owned by Sindh Agriculture Farm Tandojam were taken out from Ghat Wadh Form No,13 and were revived in their original shape/numbers. Vide Entry No,19, dated 16-11-1962 of Ghat Wadh Form in the name of Sindh Agriculture Research Farm Tandojam. (iv) Vide Entry No,20, dated 16-11-1962 of Ghat Wadh Form, an area of 1-31 acres out of Survey No,347 leaving behind an area of 0-27 Ghuntas was entered in the name of. WAPDA Colony. Similarly an area of 3-2 acres out of Survey No,348 leaving behind an area of 3-35 acres was entered in the name of Power Station. The remaining area of 3-35 acres was shown as Sikni in remarks column under order/Challan No,161, dated 14-7-1962 of the then Assistant Commissioner, Hala and Order ,No,S-II, 16, 17, dated 21-8-1962, No,R/486, dated 24-10-1962, and No,8982, dated 13- 11-1962 of the Director Settlement Survey and Land Record, Hyderabad. 9. Over a period of one decade, the entire area of Sindh Agriculture Farm Tandojam remained intact. Thereafter, in between the years 1966 to 1981, an area of about 52-20 acres out of the total area owned by the Sindh Agriculture Research Form Tandojam vide Entry No,2, dated 6-6-1956 (old VF-VII) was entered (with old survey numbers) in the names of various private persons vide different entries effected in the Record of Rights, as detailed below:-- Sr. No. Survey Number (Area in acres)Remarks 1. 342 (4-35) 346/1, 2, 3(3-10) Total 8-05Vide Entry No.57, dated 10- 7-1966 of V.F.VII, the land being treated as an evacuee, had been transferred in the name of claimant Mst. Nasreen Sarwar Shah on the basis
---
## Page 6
of Mutation Order No.ARM/717 dated 26-6- 1965 issued by the then Assistant Rehabilitation Mukhtiarkar, Hyderabad. * Vide Entry No.91, dated 21- 8-1982, Book No.12499 of V.F.XV, the claimant had gifted the land to her son, daughters and mothers. 2. 128/2 (4-34) 125/3 (4-0) Total 8-34 acres* Vide Entries Nos.63, 64 and 65, dated 12-10-1966 of V.F.VII-B, the land had been mutated in the name of claimant Sher Jan, Son of Mardan * Vide Entry No.44, dated 26-9-1984 Book No.17820 of V.F.XV, fotikhatabadal had been made in the names of the legal heirs namely Abdul Latif, Muhammad Bashir, Abdul Rasheed and Mst. Amna Begum. 3. 124/1 (2-38) 125/1 (3-21) Total 6-19* Vide Entry No.3, dated 17- 5-1969 of V.F.XV, land has been mutated in the name of claimant Muhammad Hussain, on the basis of Mutation Order No.1088, dated 14-5-1961 issued by the then A.R.M., Hyderabad. * Vide Entry No.4, dated 17- 5-1969, Book No.17840 of V.F.XV the land had been sold out to Chaudhary Muhammad Ashraf through registered sale- deed. 4. 124/4 (4-00) 125/2 (4-00) 164/2 (4-03) Total 12-03* Vide Entry No. 11, dated 15- 4-1970, the land had been transferred to claimant Maqsood Rajput son of Mehmood Rajput, Vide Entry No.1b, dated (not shown in the record) Book No. 17840 of V.F.XV, the land had been sold out to
---
## Page 7
Chaudhary Raza Ashraf son of Chaudhary Muhammad Ashraf and Nasir Iqbal son of Muhammad Iqbal through registered sale-- deed. * Vide Entry No.422, dated 14-3-1987 Book No.19445 of V.F.XV, Chaudhary Raza Ashraf had sold out his share to Jaffar Iqbal and Nasir Iqbal both sons of Chaudhary Muhammad Iqbal. 5. 335 (4-09) * Vide Entry No.37, dated 16-12-1980 of V. F.XV, Book No.12454, the land shown as non-evacuee property of Ram Sahib Roop Chand son of Meemo Mal had been transferred to Vishandas Mangharam and Seth angharam son of Bhojumal on the basis of registered sale-deed. * Vide Entry No.317, dated 7-11-1983, of V.F. XV, Book No.12325, after demise of Seth Mangaram his fifty paisas share had been inherited by his son Vishandas. * Vide Entry No.524, dated 29-5-1988 of V.F.XV Book No.12592, on the demise of Vishandas, his full rupee share had been inherited by his two sons namely Nandlal and Daulatram and two widows Kishan Bai and Chatri Bai. * Vide Entry No.141, dated 24-7-2000 the land had been converted into Sikni and the owners have introduced Housing Scheme in the name of Sakhi Wahab Town after
---
## Page 8
having lay-out plan approved from the then Administrator, Municipal Committee Tando Jam (defunct) andthe Additional deputy Commissioner-I, Hyderabad.
6. 124/2 (3-29) 124/3 (4-00) Total 7-29 acres* Vide EntryNo.277, dated 2-3-1981 of V.F.XV, Book No.12454, the land had been transferred in the name of claimant Abdul Majeed on the basis of clearance certificate (mutation order) issued by the ARM/ASC(L), Hyderabad vide his letter No.AM/1302, dated 28-7- 1973 and letter No.DC/Reh./1104, dated 17- 9-1973 of ASC(L), Hyderabad and No.DC/Reh./937, dated 24- 12-1979 of ADC-I, Hyderabad. *Vide Entry No.283, dated 16-3-1981 of V.F.XV, Book No.12454, the land had been sold out by the claimant to Rais Khan Muhammad Khan Jamali through registered sale- deed. This entry has been maintained by my predecessor (Mr. Imdadullah Uner) vide his judicial order dated 6-2- 1996 passed on the application for review filed by Khan Muhammad Jamali v. Sindh Agriculture University, Tandojam.
---
## Page 9
7. 340 (4-36) 341 (2-14) Total 6-50* Vide Entry No.25, dated 8- 6-1981 of V.F.XV, Book No.12499 the 6-27 acres by land treating as an evacuee had been transferred in the name of Messrs Modern Textile Mills, Tandojam on the basis of order No.783/R/3, dated 3- 3-1965 issued by the Chief Settlement Commissioner (Industries), Hyderabad. * Vide Entry No.26, dated 8- 6-1981 of V.F.XV, Book No.12499, the land had been sold out to Messrs Starco, Ltd. Tandojam through registered sale- deed. * Vide Entry No.20, Book No.12840, the remaining 23 Ghuntas area of S. No.341 had been mutated in the name of claimant Abdul Aziz Khan. * Vide Entry No.24, dated 8- 6-1981 of V.F.XV, Book No.12499 claimant had sold out 0-23 Ghuntas to Messrs Starco.
' It is contended that the Revenue Officers/officials who had kept the above entries of the old survey numbers, had not bothered to open and see the previous Entry No,2, dated 6-6-1956 of V.F.VII (old) according to which all these survey numbers were amalgamated/merged in a new S.No,387-388 and there was no existence of the above survey number of Deh Hotki, either in the Revenue/Survey Record or in the Revenue/survey maps and therefore, ' transfer of above S.Nos. In the names of private persons was questionable. It is further argued that allotment/auction of S.Nos.340 and 341 by the Settlement Authorities was also not proper because at the time of said auction, there was no existence of such numbers. Had the Revenue Officers/officials checked the previous entry with due care and diligence, such a havoc would have not been played with the land pertaining to Educational Institution/Sindh Agriculture University, Tandojam. 11. For the first time in the year, 1981, the Director, Finance, Sindh Agriculture University, Tandojam, vide his letter No,DF/Land/890 dated 10-8-1981 approached the then Additional Deputy Commissioner-I, Hyderabad for the restoration of land comprising S.Nos.124/4, 125/2 and 164/2 (Entry No,11, dated 15-4-1970) in the name of University. The Sindh Agriculture University authorities, however, did not challenge the rest of the Entry No,57 dated 10-7-1966, Nos.63, 64 and 65, dated 12- 10-1966, No,3, dated 17-9-1969, No,4, dated 17-5-1969, No,37, dated 16-12-1980, No,277 dated 2-3- 1981, No,283 dated 16-3-1981, No,25, dated 8-6-1981 and No,24 dated 8-6-1981, etc. Whereby atleast
---
## Page 10
an area of 52 - 28 acres belonging to Sindh Agriculture Farm was transferred to various private persons as mentioned in para. 9 above. Anyway, the learned ADC-I, Hyderabad vide his order, dated 22-8-1982 rejected the request. The Director Finance Sindh Agriculture University Tandojam preferred an Appeal No,S-13-2-519-Reader/82 against Chaudhary Muhammad Ashraf Khan, Maqsood Ahmed Rajput and Muhammad Hussain as respondents Nos.1, 2 and 3 respectively before the then Additional Commissioner-II, Hyderabad which was also rejected by the erstwhile Additional Commissioner-II, Hyderabad vide his order, dated 16-12-1991. Being aggrieved, Director, Finance, Sindh Agriculture University Tandojam filed in this Court, an application for Revision (No,SROR-86 of 1991) against the following respondents:-- (1) Ch. Muhammad Ashraf Khan (deceased) through his legal heirs namely, Mst. Noor Begum, Muhammad Zaka Ashraf, Muhammad Raza Ashraf, Nusrat Naz, Ishrat Naz, Tilat Naz, Shehla Ashraf and Naila Ashraf. (2) Maqsood Ahmed Rajput. (3) Muhammad Hussain. 12. The case was heard by Mr. Abdul Hakeem Khoso, the then Member (Judicial) Board of Revenue, Sindh. The learned counsel for the applicant mainly contended before him as under:--- "S. Nos.124 to 4 and others were acquired in the year 1953 in favour of Agriculture College Tandojam after observing full legal formalities. The Record of Rights was also mutated in favour of Agriculture College. These S. Nos. Were renumbered as 386, 387 and 388 in the year 1953., in the year 1970, Mukhtiarkar Taluka Hyderabad mutated the above land in favour of one Maqsood Ahmad on the basis of a letter bearing No,1683, dated 9-3-1970 allegedly written by the then Principal of Agriculture College that the said Survey numbers were not in possession of the College. The alleged letter was fictitious and forged document, which was managed by one Choudhry Muhammad Ashraf to take this land in favour of his labour. The S. Nos. In-question alleged to have been allotted in favour of respondents in the year 1970 when these did not exist as these numbers and others had lost its identity long back in the year 1953 due to the survey of lands by the Director, Settlement Survey and Land Record Sindh and new numbers were assigned. Therefore, apparently S. Nos.124 and others were neither existed nor available for allotment and as such the allotment of such land was ab initio void coupled with the facts that the land belonged to the Agriculture University Tandojam and was not available for allotment. The land under dispute is still in possession of the Agriculture College (now Agriculture University). 13. The learned counsel for the respondents mainly contended that the appeal of the applicant before the Additional Commissioner-II, Hyderabad was time-barred by 11 years, hence it was rightly rejected. The learned counsel opposed the application on the ground that the present matter was of civil nature and the Revenue Courts had no jurisdiction to decide the case in-question as several complicated questions of law and facts were involved. After hearing the arguments of both the sides the learned Member (Judicial) decided the case vide order, dated 26-9-1962 and allowed the revision. The concluding paras. (Nos. 5 and 6) operative part of the order, are reproduced as under:- "(5) I have considered the arguments put forth by both the counsel and also seen the record. This is an admitted position of the record that the land in-question existed in favour of the petitioner University and from their names it was transferred in favour of the respondents. Nos.2 and 3 allegedly on the basis of letter Nos.1683, dated 19-3-1970 from the then Principal of the Agriculture College wherein it is said that he had written that the land is not in possession of the College. The counsel for petitioner claimed that letter is fictitious, forged and fabricated but for the sake .Of arguments if it is presumed to have been written as it is, even then the basic question is whether it was within the competency and jurisdiction of Taluka Mukhtiarkar to mutate or change the Khata on the basis of simple letter without notice stating therein that the land in-question is not in possession of the College. The property in-question belongs to the College now University and not
---
## Page 11
to the Principal. This is crystal clear even from the Entry which had been made in favour of respondents Nos.2 and 3 that ownership of this land was with the College and as such the property could not be changed on the letter of the Principal, even though he would have given consent for mutation as the property does not belong to him. There is no such law that a particular property belonging to someone and is not in one's physical possession, could be transferred in favour of other person. This goes to prove that the basic entry whereby the respondents Nos.2 and 3 had derived right in the land on the strength of said letter of the Principal, is illegal and void ab initio, as…
Read the unabridged text and precedent citation network on Al Wakeelo Legal Research Platform.