Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Revision No. 110 of 1958‑59, decided on 8th September 1959.
para. 9‑"Existing owner"‑Meaning‑ Petitioners not entered as owners in revenue records‑Cannot be allowed to file Fortes LC‑I and LC‑II.
Dharaindas Moolchand for Petitioner.
This order will dispose of the following 20 revisions:‑----
(1) Jai Krishan v. State (Revision No. 110).
(2) Mrs. Manghi Bai v. State (Revision No. 111).
(3) Sunder v. State (Revision No. 112).
(4) Dalip v. State (Revision No. 113).
(5) Partab Rai v. State (Revision No. 114).
(6) Radho Mal v. State (Revision No. 115).
(7) Jagat v. State (Revision No. 116).
(8) Sunder v. State (Revision No. 117).
(9) Paroomal v. State (Revision No. 118).
(10),Mrs. Kalan Bai v. State (Revision No. 119).
(11) Jagdish v. State (Revision No. 120).
(12) Kailash v. State (Revision No. 121).
(13) Stesh v. State (Revision No. 122).
(14) Pitu v. State (Revision No. 123).
(15) Srimati Jhimi Bai v. State (Revision No. 124).
(16) Ishwar Das v. State (Revision No. 126).
(17) Mahesh v. State (Revision No. 127).
(18) Srimati Mora Bai v. State (Revision No. 128).
(19) Kumar v. State (Revision No. 129).
(20) Jammomal v. State (Revision No. 130).
These 20 revisions have been filed against orders, dated the 20th of July 1959, passed by Land Commissioner, Hyderabad, whereby he rejected the appeals filed by the petitioners against orders passed by the Deputy Land Commissioner who had refused to entertain Forms LC‑I and LC‑II put in by the petitioners.
The facts of the case are that the petitioners put in Forms LC‑I and LC‑II ‑ under Martial Law Regulation No. 64. Enquiries were made and it was found that none of the petitioners was entered as an owner in the revenue records. The requests of the petitioners were, therefore, rejected. They went in appeals but their appeals were also dismissed. Hence these 20 revisions.
I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. He has drawn my attention to sections 135‑C and 135‑D of Sind Land Revenue Code and the Manual of Village Revenue Accounts for Sind. Sections 135‑C and 135‑D simply lay down procedure for the reporting of acquisition of rights and in respect of register of mutations and registers of disputed cases. The relevant section is 135‑B of the Sind Land Revenue Code which defines what the record‑of‑right is. The learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to show me the name of any of the petitioners in the revenue records maintained under section 135‑B. In certain cases, the name of the petitioner like Paroomal is entered in the mutation register. Nowhere does his name find a place as an owner in any of the revenue records maintained under section 135‑B. An existing owner is one whose name is entered as an owner in the revenue records and, since none of the petitioners has been entered as such, they cannot be allowed to file Forms LC‑I and LC‑II.
The Manual of Village Revenue Accounts for Sind is also procedural and does not help the petitioners at all. In these circumstances, no interference is justified. All the 20 revision petitions fail and are dismissed hereby.
S. Q. Petitions dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer