Civil Revision  No.58 of 2010.

DATE OF HEARING

ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF HON’BLE JUDGE

1. For Hearing of CMA No.81/2011.

16.01.2017.

                        Mr. Abdul Rehman Bhutto, advocate for the applicant.

                        Mr. Abdul Ghaffar Shaikh, advocate for the respondent No.3.

                        Mr. Ali Akbar Kalhoro, State Counsel.

                                                -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-

Nazar Akbar, J- The applicant/plaintiff filed a civil suit bearing F.C. Suit No.21/2005 (New No.58/2008) against Assistant Engineer, Local Government Support Unit, Ratodero & others, for declaration, possession and compensation. The case of the applicant/plaintiff is that he own agricultural land bearing S.No.142/5 situated in Deh Zangeja, out of which an area 4900 sq. feet was handed over to the Executive Engineer Local Government/District Support Unit Larkana, without any compensation. On 12.02.1998, the plaintiff and defendant No.1 entered into an agreement duly signed by both the parties before the then Assistant Commissioner Ratodero, to the effect that after completion and installation of tube-well for disposal of dirty water in the said plot, the posts of Tube-well Operator, Malhi and Chowkidar will be provided to the plaintiff/or his recommended persons. The said scheme was completed in the year 1999, and defendant No.1 kept the plaintiff on false hopes on one or the other pretext. Thereafter plaintiff so many times approached defendant No.1 and 2 verbally for the appointment of the person(s) of plaintiff but they kept the plaintiff on false hopes. On 24.08.2004, the plaintiff moved an application to defendant No.1 who also kept the plaintiff on false hopes. After about one month prior to filing of the suit the plaintiff went to defendants No.1 & 2 and requested them for appointment of a person on tube-well as Operator, Malhi and Chowkidar but defendants refused to fulfill the requirement of the agreement and also refused to give the compensation of the land in dispute. The plaintiff is owner of S.No.142 and 144 and the defendants have encroached upon area of about 4900 sq. feet from S.No.142 for construction of tube well and its premises and an area of about 2700 sq. feet have also been acquired from S.No.144 by the defendants in the month of December 2004 for the above said purpose. In the month of December 2004 defendant No.1 came at village Zangeja meet with Nek Mard Muhammad Hafeez Khan and Sherdil Zangejo, where defendant No.1 demanded plot 2700 sq feet for construction of drain of water for the village. The plaintiff was called through the Nek Mard and oral agreement was made with defendant No.1 in presence of above Nek Mard to the effect that after completion of drainage scheme they will pay the compensation to the plaintiff at the rate of Rs.50/- per feet. The construction work of drain has been completed by the defendants. Defendants did not pay the compensation to plaintiff and kept him on false hopes. Lastly plaintiff prayed for the following prayer as under :

a) That this Honourable Court may be pleased to declare the plaintiff is owner of S.No.142/5 and 144 of Deh Zangeja taluka Ratodero.

b) That this Honourable Court be pleased to award compensation of acquired area 4900 sq. feet in S.No.144 of deh Zangeja Taluka Ratodero in case of failure this Honourable Court be pleased to award possession of suit land through the Nazir of this Court.

c) That this Honourable Court be pleased to grant costs of the suit to plaintiff.

d) Any other relief available under the circumstances of the suit be awarded to plaintiff.

                        Upon service of process/summons, the respondents/defendants No.1 to 3 resisted the suit by filing their written statement.  The learned trial Court framed as many as 12 issues and then proceeded with the trial. The appellant/plaintiff examined himself and produced Village Form VII-B, Original copy of agreement and certified true copy of Dakhal Kharij; he also examined his witnesses, namely, Mohammad Hafeez.   The respondents/defendants No.5 & 6 were joined as party and after filing of their written statement amended issues were framed by the trial Court.  The evidence earlier led by the plaintiff and his witness was adopted and in rebuttal the respondent/defendant No.1 examined himself and then side of defendants was closed.

                        The learned trial Court on conclusion of trial handed down the judgment dated 13.06.2009 whereby dismissing the suit filed by the applicant. The judgment and decree of the trial Court were assailed by the applicant/plaintiff by filing Civil Appeal No.53/2009 before the learned District Judge, Larkana, which too was dismissed by the learned V-Additional District Judge, Larkana by judgment dated 17.6.2010 and decree dated 21.6.2010.  The applicant has challenged the judgments and decrees of both the learned Courts below by filing this civil revision application before this Court.

                        I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and the respondent No.3 and perused the record. The counsel for the applicant has failed to point out single piece of evidence which could be considered is relevant for the grant of relief to the applicant and the same was ignored by the two Courts below. To the contrary the case of the applicant is full of contradictions. In the plaint he alleges that there was an agreement in writing in which it is stated that on completion of subject three posts would be offered to him or he would be compensated at the rate of Rs.50/- per sq. feet. However, in the evidence he failed to establish the agreement as he could not produce two attesting witnesses. Only one witness was produced and he has admitted in the cross examination that he was not witness of the agreement, Ex-44-B. There is also dispute regarding ownership of the property between the plaintiff and other legal heirs of real owner who are respondents No.5 & 6. In the agreement the property has been shown in Survey No.142/5 and not in S.No.144 as claimed by the plaintiff. The very fact that the applicant has prayed for declaration of ownership of S.No.142/5 and 144 of Deh Zangeja taluka Ratodero, is sufficient to dislodge his claim of entering into any agreement in respect of property in the two survey numbers and the ownership has not been decided in his favour. He has failed to obtain decree of declaration of ownership. The appellate Court has upheld the findings on the basis of the evidence. No case is made out for interference in the revisional jurisdiction to set aside the concurrent findings.

                         This Civil Revision was dismissed by short order dated 16.01.2017 and the above are the reasons for the same.

Judge