Find a Lawyer

Case No.SROA/136 of 2009, decided on 2nd February, 2011.

----Ss. 161 & 164---Appeal to Board of Revenue---Appeal against the order by the Executive District Officer (Revenue) whereby the proceedings under S.164 of West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 were stopped till the final disposal of civil suit---Counsel for the appellant had contended that appellant was owner of the land to the extent of his share in un-partitioned joint owned property and that false/bogus title/Khata was created in connivance with some corrupt officials of the lower functionaries in the names of respondents---Counsel for the respondents contended that as the appellant was trying to grab the property in question, he had filed suit before the civil court, which was pending---Counsel for the respondents had prayed that matter being sub judice before the civil court, impugned order of the Executive District Officer (Revenue), could be maintained---Validity---Parties were directed to approach the competent court of law to decide the issue regarding the title of person. Appellant in person. Hareesh Chander for Respondent.

This is an appeal filed in this court on 6 8-2009, against the order dated 14-7-2009, passed by the Executive District Officer (Revenue) Mirpurkhas, whereby the proceeding under section 164 of Sindh Land Revenue Act 1967 is hereby stopped till the final disposal of Senior Civil Judge Mirpurkhas in respect of Plot No.46 admeasuring 9800 sq. ft: situated in Deh Khut Taluka Mirpurkhas. 2. Heard the parties and perused the impugned order including case papers. 3. I have considered the arguments put forth by the counsel for the parties. The counsel for appellant mainly contended that the appellant is owner to the extent of 12-1/2 per cent in a joint owned property (unpartitioned property) admeasuring 1-00 acre and 216-1/2 Sq: Ft. (43756 1/2) Sq:Ft:in Revenue Survey No.3 Deh .Khut, Tapo Mubarak Taluka Mirpurkhas with the following boundaries :--

4. That fake/bogus title/khata was created in connivance with some corrupt officials of the lower functionaries in the names of respondents Nos.1 to 4 in the shape of Plot No.46 admeasuring 9800 sq:ft: in Deh Khut, Taluka Mirpurkhas, vide Entry No.453 dated 25-8-1995. He has further contended that the Executive District Officer (Revenue) has cancelled the plot under suo motu powers vested in him and passed the impugned order dated 14-7-2009 that the Plot No.46 admeasuring 9800 sq: ft: has been entered the basis of fake Registered Gift Deed No.101 dated 14-1-1985 as reported by the Supervising Tapedar Mirwah and Jhuluri in their report submitted to the Deputy District Officer (Revenue) Mirpurkhas that after verification for the Sub-Registrar, Mirpurkhas who disclosed that Registered Gift Deed No.101 dated 14-1-1985 is existed in the name of Liaquat Ali son of Din Muhammad as power of attorney of Plot No.8 and not for the Plot No.46 admeasuring 9800 sq: ft: and entered in the Revenue Record vide Entry No.453 dated 27-8-1995 since the matter is sub judiced before the Civil Court at this stage no any order passed under this section 164 of Sindh Land Revenue Act 1967. He therefore, prayed that the proceeding may be stopped till the final disposal of Suit No.99 of 2009 by the Civil Court. 5. The counsel for respondent mainly contended that the subject land from illegal occupy/possession, he approached the party No.1 to support being the influential persons and just shown them as nominal co-purchaser in order to strengthen him. He has further argued that the party No.1 claimed that he would be the real/original owner, but now the party No.1 trying to grab the subject property therefore he filed Suit No.99 of 2009 before the 1st Senior Civil Judge Mirpurkhas which is still pending. He therefore prayed that the subject-matter is sub judice before the Civil Court. He therefore prayed that the impugned order of Executive District Officer (Revenue) Mirpurkhas may be maintained. 6. I have given full consideration to the arguments put forth by the parties at length. Both parties are directed to approach the competent court of law to decide the issue which has been raised regarding the title of person. H.B.T./3-Rev. Order accordingly.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.