Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. K‑134 of 1983, decided on 17th May, 1983.

(On appeal from the judgment of the High Court of Sind at Sukkur, dated 13‑2‑1983 in Civil R. A. No. 74 of 1981).

‑‑ Art. 185 (3)‑State land, grant of‑Discretion exercised by Revenue Authorities in matter of grant of land on basis of inter se status of parties found by civil Courts not in violation of any rule or law on subject‑Judgment of High Court in revision upholding orders of trial Court and appellate Court‑Held, unexceptionable.

Abdul Hajiz Memon, Advocate Supreme Court with Rashid Akhtar Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.

Abdul Mujeeb Pirzada, Advocate Supreme Court with Faizanul Haq, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No. 1.

Date of hearing : 17th May, 1983.

This petition arises out of a Civil Suit filed by the petitioner against the respondent for declaration that being a landless Hari he is entitled to grant of land comprised by survey number 562, measuring 5.22 acres, situated in Deh Gaji, Gadani, Taluka Mirpur Mathelo District Sukkur, which is in his cultivating possession, and that the orders passed by the Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Sind and the Coloni zation Officer Guddu Barrage, the second and the third respondents respectively, granting land to Ghulam Akbar, the first respondent, be declared as illegal and void.

2. The facts leading to the filing of the suit briefly stated are that in an open Katchery held on 17‑I1‑1973 the Colonization Officer, Guddu Barrage granted the suit land to Ghulam Akbar for the following reasons

"No one has previous Khasmokal right or previous cultivation right over this land.

It was revealed in the Katchery that Ghulam Akbar son of Ghulam Mustafa is resident and Hari of land. His name is entered as Hari in the Khasra Girdwari also for this S. No. Thus he appears to be more deserving for grant of this land."

3. This order was challenged by Ali Ahmad petitioner and one Abdul Karim in separate appeals to the Additional Settlement Commis sioner, Sukkur and in final result the Additional Commissioner directed fresh disposal of the land as according, to him none of the three applicants for the grant of land was a deserving person. According to him Ali Ahmad who by‑face seems to be a young man cannot be a Hari, moreover his father had already been granted 16 acres of land in different Deh Mitho Lund". Ghulam Akbar was disqualified by the Additional Commis sioner for the reasons, in his words "he is also a Government Servant, in railway department. By fact I don't find him a Hari". Abdul Karim was held by him to be ineligible for "he is also a minor and schooling".

4. The order of the learned Additional Commissioner led to two appeals, one by Ali Ahmad, and the other, jointly by 'Ghulam Akbar and Abdul Karim. Learned Additional Member Board of Revenue, Sind who heard the appeals held that Ali Ahmad petitioner was not entitled to the grant of land for the reason that there is specific finding of the learned Additional Commissioner to the effect that father of Ali Ahmad had got 16 acres of land in Deh Mitho Lund. Ali Ahmad has not rebutted this finding by any documentary evidence. The disputed land is situated in deh Gaji Gadani and since the father of the petitioner has been granted land in another deh the petitioner Ali Ahmad cannot be treated as a resident of deh Gaji Gadani."

5. According to learned Member Abdul Karim was not entitled to the grant of land for the reason that "his name is not entered as Hari of the deh".

6. Learned Member however held that Ghulam Akbar was entitled to the grant for the reason that his "name is shown as Hari in Khasra Girdawari Register and he was granted land by the Colonization Officer Guddu Barrage on hard conditions vide his order dated 17‑11‑1973. Under the circumstances of the case there was no justification to interfere with his grant particularly when the other had no superior rights."

7. As stated earlier these orders were challenged by Ali Ahmad petitioner in a civil suit. Learned trial Judge held that both Ali Ahmad petitioner and Ghulam Akbar respondent are Haris, but no person as a matter of right (can) claim the land of the Colonization Department and the Government thereby retains rights of grant of land and the selection of the Haris. The plaintiff had not proved his preferential right of grant over the suit land before the Additional Member Board of Revenue. He has also not proved his preferential right of grant before this Court. The plaintiff has not proved as to "how the order passed by the defendant No. 2 is illegal and without jurisdiction". On this view of the case learned trial Judge dismissed the suit.

8. The judgment and the decree of the learned trial Judge was upheld by the District Judge on appeal and the revision application filed by the petitioner in Sind High Court was dismissed by the judgment, dated 13‑2‑1983.

9. Mr. Abdul Hafeez Memon learned counsel appearing in support of this petition for leave to appeal from the judgment of the High Court submitted that petitioner being Hari in cultivating possession of the suit land was entitled to the grant of land as against Ghulam Akbar who was a railway employee, and the learned Member Board of Revenue has seriously erred in refusing to grant land to the petitioner just for the reason that his father has already been granted 16 acres of land in a different Deh. In this behalf, learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner being the Hari of the land was entitled in his own right to the grant of the land under the Rules. Learned counsel urged that the finding of the learned Member that since petitioner's father has been granted land in another deh petitioner cannot be treated as resident of deh Gaji Gadani is based on mere conjections.

1.0. After having gone through the record of the case in the light of the points raised by the learned counsel we feel that whereas there is no doubt that the petitioner was a Hari of the suit‑land for the year 1971‑72 onwards yet it can also be said for Ghulam Akbar that he was the co -Hari of the suit land at least for the year 1971‑72. In the circumstances it was for the revenue authorities to prefer the one against the other. It is obvious that Ghulam Akbar was granted the land inter alia for the reason that Ali ‑Ahmed's father had already been granted 16 acres of land. The discretion exercised by the Revenue Authorities in the matter of grant: of land on the basis of inter se status of the parties in this case does not, violate any rule or law on the subject so as to call for interference by the civil Courts. No exception can, therefore, be taken with the view that prevailed in the High Court, and this petition is, therefore, dismissed.

M. A. K.

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.