Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition No. K‑471 of 1983, decided on 15th January, 1984.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of Sind at Karachi, dated 18th August, 1983, passed in Constitutional Petition No. D‑705 of 1980).

‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Mutation‑‑Revenue entries (mutation)‑‑Allegations of fraud and forgeries in such entries made against certain parties‑‑High Court directing Deputy Commissioner to take fresh action as to correction of mutation in respect of survey numbers in dispute after affording opportunity of hearing to parties affected thereby‑‑Order of High Court, held, unexceptionable.

Khalid M. Ishaque, Advocate Supreme Court assisted by M. Shabbir Ghaury, Advocate‑in‑Record for Petitioners.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 15th January, 1984.

Facts of this case briefly stated are that petitioners purchased the disputed land from Ghulam Kadir respondent under a registered sale‑deed, dated 21‑12‑1978, and the land was mutated in the revenue record in their names by the order of Mukhtiarkar, dated 4‑1‑1979. Subsequently the Mukhtiarkar cancelled the revenue entries in petitioners' favour by the order, dated 7‑2‑1979.

Petitioners challenged this order in Constitutional Petition No. 25 of 1979 in Sind High Court, but they later on withdrew it, and it was dismissed on 12‑4‑1980. Petitioners, however, filed another petition under Article 199 of the Constitution, being Constitutional Petition No. D‑705 of 1980, seeking to challenge, in addition the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Sanghar, dated 17‑12‑1979 passed in the meantime, whereby he held that the entries in the revenue record in Ghulam Kadir respondent's name were effected on the basis of bogus certificate purported to have been issued by the Rehabilitation Authorities.

The High Court accepted petitioners' plea that the impugned orders were passed against them without affording any opportunity of hearing to them, and held that these having thus been passed in violation the principles of natural justice were invalid in law. On this view of the case, the High Court allowed the Constitutional Petition but remitted the case to the Deputy Commissioner, Sanghar "to take fresh action as to correction of mutation in respect of survey numbers in dispute, after affording an opportunity to the parties".

Petitioners now seek leave to appeal from the judgment of the High Court, and Mr. Khalid Ishaque, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners being the lawful purchaser of the property are entitled to the full relief prayed for by them in the High Court for the declaration that they are the lawful owners of the property, and also entitled to the issuance of an injunction restraining the department from holding any enquiry into allotments of land to Ghulam Kadir respondent, "subsequent purchase thereof by the petitioners", and also from with holding the mutation in the record of rights in any manner whatsoever, and also further to restrain all the respondents from interfering with ownership and lawful physical cultivation possession of the petitioners".

After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners in the light of the record before us we are clearly of the view that since serious allegations of fraud and forgeries in respect of revenue entries were made against certain parties, the High Court rightly directed that the Deputy Commissioner may take fresh action as to correction of mutation in respect of survey numbers in dispute, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties effected thereby. In these proceedings, it would be open to the petitioners to raise all pleas that may be available to them but interference by this Court in the case would hardly be justified.

The petition is, therefore, dismissed.

M . Y . H . 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.