Find a Lawyer

Civil Revision No. 295 of 1981, decided on 20th September, 1981.

‑‑ S. 115‑Question whether land in dispute jointly owned by petitioners and respondent or it was exclusive property of peti tioners‑Held, a question of fact‑No misreading of evidence pointed out, held, further, interference not required, in circumstances. [Question of fact].

Ch. Asghar Ali Bhatti for Petitioners.

This civil revision arises. from the judgment and decree passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, D.G. Khan, whereby he on 7th June. 1981 dismissed the appeal filed by Muhammad Bakhsh and others plaintiffs/ petitioners against the judgment and decree of the learned Senior Civil Judge, D.G. Khan, by which he on 21st September. 1980 had dismissed the suit declaration filed by the ' petitioners/plaintiffs against the Province of Punjab and others, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

2. On 15th October, 1977 plaintiffs/petitioners filed a suit for declaration to the effect that they being the owners of the land measuring 1,400 kanals were entitled to an equivalent area in consolidation and the acquisition proceedings dated 31st August, 1970 qua their rights are illegal and ineffective.

3. The facts giving rise to the suit are that Khasra No. 741 measur ing 1,248 kanals and 10 marlas belong to the Government of Punjab, respondent No. l out of which 180 kanals (Khasra No. 741/1 /2) was sold by respondent No. 1 to one Zahran Khan, who further sold the same to Muhammad Bakhsh and others petitioners/plaintiffs through mutation No. 1166 dated 14th May, 1966. Khasra No. 741/1/1 measuring 54 kanals and 12 marlas was in the name of Muhammad Bakhsh and others which on 31st August, 1971 was acquired for the construction of Fatehpur Dis tributory but in consolidation proceedings Muhammad Bakhsh, etc. were not given any land in lieu of Khasra No. 741/1/1. The case of the petitioners/plaintiffs is that, in fact, they were the joint owner of whole khasra and the land acquired on 31st August, 1971 out of the same being jointly owned, the acquired land should have been deducted from the joint ownership of Khasra No. 741 and not from their exclusive ownership of Khasra No. 741/ t/l. The respondents/ defendants raised preliminary objections and denied the averments of the plaint. The pleadings gave rise to the following issues :

(1) Whether the Civil Court has of jurisdiction to try suit in hand OPP.

(2) Whether the plaintiffs are estopped by them words and conduct from filing suit in hand OPD.

(3) Whether the acquisition of 54 kanals 12 marlas of land comprised in Khasra No. 741/1/1 from the land of plaintiffs alone is illegal, ultra vires, opposed to facts, void and ineffective, and right of plaintiffs for reason stated in plaint OPP

(4) Relief.

The learned trial Judge found issue No. 1 in the affirmative. Issue No. 2 against the respondents/defendants. Issue No. 3 against the peti tioners/plaintiffs and dismissed the suit leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Feeling aggrieved the petitioners plaintiffs filed an appeal which was dismissed on .7th June, 1981 by the learned Addl. District Judge, D.G. Khan. Hence this revision petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the courts below have misread Exhs. P. 1. i.e., jamabandi and mutations Nos. 1166 and 11.67 Exhs. P. 2 and P 3 and that entry of Khasra No. 74l/l/‑1 of Khata No. 151 in the mutation indicates that it was a joint property. He further submits that the land acquired for construction of Fatehpur Distributory being joint property of all the co‑owners, the learned courts below have wrongly held that Khasra No. 741/1/1 was exclusive, property of the petitioners.

5. Having considered the arguments and gone through the material placed on the record of this petition, I find that the question involved in this petition is whether Khasra No. 741/1/1 (the land acquired for the construction of Fatehpur Distributory was jointly owned by the petitioners and respondents Nos. 4 to 9 or it was the exclusive property of the peti tioners. To me, it is a question of fact. Darned counsel has not been able to point out misreading of any document or any evidence. The learned courts below have properly dealt with this question. I find that the learned Addl. District Judge has rightly pointed out that "whole of Khasra No. 741 originally belonged to the Province of Punjab. There is no document on the file to indicate as to how Zahran Khan (from whom the petitioners had purchased Khasra No. 741/1/1) acquired this land from the Province of Punjab." I am of the opinion that since the peti tioners had stepped into the shoes of Zahran Khan, the document referred to by the learned Additional District Judge was an important link which has not been brought on the record by the petitioners, the learned Addi tional District Judge, therefore, rightly presumed that Khasra No. 741/1/2 was sold to Zahran Khan by the Province of Punjab and he was not a co‑sharer in the remaining portion of Khasra No. 741. It has been admitted by the learned counsel before me that the compensation for the entire acquired land, i.e. 54 kanals and 12 marla has been allowed ex clusively to the petitioner and not to respondents Nos. 4 to 9. He informs that the same has been deposited with the revenue authorities by the Punjab Government but the same has not been drawn by the petitioners so far.

5. The upshot of the discussion is that the learned Courts below have properly and legally appreciated the factual and legal aspect of the matter. There is no substance in this revision petition and the same is hereby dis missed in limine.

M.Y.M 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.