Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 60 of 1978, decided on 17th June, 1978.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 29th October, 1977 in Writ Petition No. 37/R of 1977).

-.- Arts. 199 & 185(3)-Claim, correction of-Petitioners wrong fully getting recorded in their verified claim form even land abandoned by respondents in India and such done by taking undue advantage of similarity of names of fathers of parties-High Court dismissing writ petition of petitioners and directing them to appear before Officer on Special Duty and such Officer coming to conclusion of petitioners having, wrongfully got recorded respondents land in their claim after examination of Jamabandis received from India as well as pedigree-tables of both parties-Officer on Special Duty, held, wholly justified in correcting record and contention that such officer could not reopen matter of claim of petitioners verified for entire land long ago repelled.

Rana Abdul Majid, Advocate and 1qbal Ahmad Qureshi, Advocate-on Record for Petitioners.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 17th June, 1978.

---This leave petition, which is meant to impugn the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 29th October, 1977 arises in the following circumstances : -

On 9th August, 1975 the respondent No. 2 herein, namely. Sardar filed an application before the Officer on Special Duty, Board of Revenue (Settlement and Rehabilitation Wing), Punjab, Lahore, complaining therein that the land which his father, namely, Ghulam son of Lakhveera had abandoned in India was wrongly verified on the Claim Form No. 2003 of another person, namely, Ghulam son of Lakhmira of village Chankothi Khere, Tehsil Fatehabad, District Hissar. Of this application notice was given to the peti tioners herein who appeared in the proceedings, were duly heard and thereafter the learned Officer on Special Duty vide his order dated 20th December, 1976 allowed the said application with the result that the verified Claim Form No. 2003 for 93 bighas and 19 biswas of land was withdrawn from the name of respondents herein and instead a fresh Farde-Haqiat was ordered to be issued to them for 47 bighas of land which was their actual entitlement.

Being aggrieved of the said order, petitioners herein filed writ peti tion in the High Court.But the same was dismissed, vide the impugned judgment. It is in this background that they have come up to this Court praying leave to appeal against the impugned judgment of the High Court.

The only grievance urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that Officer on Special Duty in the Central Record Office had no juris diction to reopen the matter after the claim of his clients had been verified for 93 bighas and 19 biswas of land of which they had remained in undisturbed possession for a long time. There is no force in this contention. The order of the learned Officer on Special Duty would show that when notices were issued to the petitioners for inquiry in the applica tion of respondent Sardar, they rushed to the High Court by filing writ petition. However, the writ petition in question was dismissed by a learned Single Judge in limine and the petitioners herein directed to appear before the Officer on Special Duty to prove their case. In obedience to the said direction of the High Court the petitioners herein appeared before the learned Officer on Special Duty who after going through the record of the case carefully came to the conclusion that by taking undue advantage of the similarity of names, namely, Lakhmira, the predecessor-in-interest of petitioner herein and Lakhveera, the pre decessor-in-interest of respondent No. 2 herein the former had wrongly got verified in his own claim Claim Form No. 2003 even the land abandon ed by the latter. Now this finding of the learned Officer on Special Duty is based upon the examination of Jamabandis received from India as well as the pedigree-tables of both parties. After the said examination, the said Officer recorded the following finding: -

"In view of the facts stated above and the record it is evident beyond any doubt that there is village Chankothi. There were two right holders of name of Ghulam, The parentage of one was Lakhmira and of other Lakhveeras. Their co-sharers were different. The entire area of both the right holders in the first instance was verified on Claim form No. 2003. But in 1956 the mistake was detected and khata of both the right holders was separated. Ghulam son of Lakhveera who filed Claim Form No. 2003 and whose real brothers are Noor Khan and Mehra, etc. are entitled to 47 bighas only as his brothers have been verified area to this extent. Therefore, the Fard-e-Haqiat of his claim, Form No. 2003 verified previously for 93 bighas 2 biswas is with drawn and cancelled and a fresh. Fard-e-Haqiat of 47 bighas to the extent of his correct entitlement be issued. The area of other Ghulam son of Lakhmira measuring 46 bighas and 14 biswas be verified from his Claim Form No. 1471."

By going through the order of the learned Officer on Special Duty to the correctness of which the learned counsel for the petitioners has taken no exception, we are satisfied that by taking undue advantage o similarity of names of the fathers of the parties herein the petitioners ha wrongfully got recorded in their verified claim form even the land abandoned by respondents herein in India. In these circumstances, when the said position was detected by the respondents herein, the learned Officer on Special Duty Central Record Office was wholly justified to intervene in order to correct the record as well as to do justice to the respondents.

This petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed.

Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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