Find a Lawyer

Civil Appeal No. 90‑K of 1981, decided on 21st January, 1985.

(Against the judgment of the High Court of Sind Karachi, dated 4‑12‑1980, passed in an application of Respondents 5 to 28 for impleading as parties in the Constitutional Petition No. 68 of 1979).

‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act (XIV of 1975), S. 3‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.1, r.10‑‑Constitutional petition against cancellation of transfer of land‑ Sitting cultivators of land were impleaded as parties to such constitutional petition on ground that land in question having been placed at disposal of Colonization Officer, for disposal according to scheme framed or to be framed under S. 3 of Act XIV of 1975, they had first right of purchase, being sitting cultivators‑‑Plea of petitioner before Supreme Court was that impleaded cultivators/ respondents were neither necessary, nor proper parties and they should not have been impleaded as respondents‑‑Held, if ultimately petitioners were not found to be entitled to the transfer of land in their favour, impleaded respondents would become entitled to purchase said land by virtue of Act XIV of 1975‑‑Such respondents were rightly impleaded by High Court so that they could be heard when matter was decided‑‑Appeal dismissed in circumstances.

Iqbal Kazi, Advocate Supreme Court with V.A. Kidwai, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellants.

Respondents Nos. 1 and 4:Ex parte.

S. M . Abbas Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents Nos.2 and 3.

Maroof Ali Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents Nos.5 to 28.

Date of hearing: 21st January, 1985.

‑‑This appeal is directed against the order of the High Court of Sind, dated 4‑12‑1980, whereby it accepted an application under Order I, rule 10, C.P.C. filed by respondents 5 to 28 to be impleaded as parties in Constitutional Petition No. 68 of 1979.

2. The facts leading to this appeal briefly, are that Mir Ehsan Ali Khan was transferred some agricultural land in Tharparkar in lieu of his claim of land left by him in India. He sold the land in question to the petitioners through a sale‑deed, dated 30‑12‑1963, which was registered on 28‑4‑1964. They took over possession of the said land and their names were entered in the Record‑of‑Rights. Subsequently, however, transfer of the land in question in favour of Mir Phsan Ali Khan was cancelled by the relevant official of the Settlement Department as his claim was found to be without foundation. Consequently the names of the petitioners, who purchased the land from Mir Ehsan Ali Khan, were also struck off from the Record‑off'‑Rights. Feeling aggrieved they filed a Constitutional Petition against the cancellation of the transfer of land in question in favour of Mir Ehsan Ali Khan.

Respondents 5 to 28 who were silting cultivators of the said land made an application under Order 11, rule 10, C.P.C. to be impleaded as parties to the Constitutional Petition filed by the petitioners, on the ground that the land in question having been placed at the disposal of the Colonization Officer, Sukkur Barrage, Hyderabad, for disposal according to the Scheme framed or to be framed under section 3 of Act XIV of 1975, they had the first right of purchase, being sitting cultivators. The petitioners opposed this application.

3. After hearing the parties the learned High Court passed the impugned order whereby respondents 5 to 28 were arrayed as respondent in the Constitutional Petition filed by the petitioners, on the basis of documents produced by the respondents showing that they were in cultivating possession of the land in question.

Feeling aggrieved the petitioners filed a petition for leave to appeal before this Court. Leave was granted to them on 13‑5‑1981.

4. The main contention urged, by the learned counsel for the petitioners before us is that respondents 5 to 28 were neither necessary nor proper parties and that, therefore, they should not have been impleaded as respondents.

We cannot agree with this submission because it is evident that if, ultimately, Mir Ehsan Ali Khan is not found to be entitled to the transfer and it is held that transfer of land in question in his favour was not legally valid, respondents 5 to 28 will become entitled to purchase the said land by virtue of Act XIV of 1975. They were, therefore rightly impleaded as respondents by the high Court so that they, too can be heard when the matter is decided.

For the foregoing reasons we find no force in the appeal and dismiss the same with costs.

A. A. Appeal 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.