Judgment Sheet

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, BENCH AT SUKKUR

Civil Revision No. S – 16 of 1996

Date of hearing: 20-09-2021

Date of decision: 20-09-2021

Mian Mumtaz Rabbani Advocate for the Applicant.

Mr. Sarfaraz Akhund Advocate for private Respondents.

Mr. Mehbood Ali Wassan, Assistant Advocate General Sindh.

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

J U D G M E N T

Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar, J. – Through this Civil Revision, the Applicant has impugned judgment dated 30.01.1996 passed by the District Judge, Ghotki in Civil Appeal No.30 of 1994, whereby the judgment passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Ghotki in F.C. Suit No.102 of 1984 dated 25.9.1994, through which the Suit of Respondents was decreed, has been maintained and the Appeal has been dismissed.

2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. An effort has been made by the Applicants Counsel to have the concurrent findings of the Courts below, set-aside by placing reliance on land grant policy as according to him the Applicant was entitled for the grant of land in question as he resided in the same Deh; however, it appears that the learned Appellate Court, to resolve the issue took upon itself to visit the site and made oral spot inquiry. The relevant findings of the Appellate Court read as under;

Today at the joint request of the contesting parties i.e. Saifal and Moula Bux I visited the site and made oral spot enquiries about the place of residence of these parties. Residents of Shero Mahar and Ibrahim Mahar villages stated that Saifal resides in village Ibrahim Mahar.  His house was also shown to me by The villages of Ibrahim Mahar

It must be mentioned here that the perusal of the orders of learned Additional Commissioner, Sukkur, and Member Board of Revenue show that Saifal had not claimed himself to be resident of Shero Mahar before any of them. Before them he was admittedly resident of village Ibrahim Mahar, but here he changed the position by claiming to be resident of village Shero Mahar which is very near to the disputed land.  However, in the result of visit of the two villages i.e. Shero Mahar and Ibrahim Mahar and the oral spot inquiries it became clear that Saifal is residing in out skirts of village Ibrahim Mahar. 

Admittedly village Ibrahim Mahar is situate in Deh Ibrahim Mahar wherein the disputed land is situate, whereas Razo Mahar the village of Moula Bux though near to the disputed land than Ibrahim Mahar village, is situate in an other Deh namely Qazi Badal.

The learned Member Board of Revenue has cancelled the grant of Moula Bux on the ground that his village Razo Mahar though nearer to the disputed land is situate in an other Deh, therefore, Saifal being resident of same Deh has preferential right/ claim.  In my view the learned Member Board of Revenue has ignored the order of priority in land grant policy. In that order at b-it is a candidate residing in village near to the land in question and at c, it is the person president of same Deh. Thus it becomes clear that priority is to the person who resides near to the land in question, irrespective of Deh. Obviously if one of the two candidates resides in sam Deh, but at more distance from the other candidate who resides in the adjoining Deh then, in view of the priority at b, the later has the preferential claim and right.  Learned Member Board of Revenue cancelled the grant of Moula Bux after giving finding that his village Razo Mahar is near to the disputed land as against Ibrahim Mahar the village of appellant Saifal, which is definitely not in accordance with the land grant policy. His order is, therefore, illegal and has rightly been declared so by the learned trial court.

In view of his preferential right as against Saifal cancellation of grant in favour of Moula Bux was not warranted even if he could not establish P.K.M. right over the land as his case falls under priority immediately after P.K.M. right.

4. After having perused the aforesaid finding of the learned Appellate Court, the Counsel for the Applicants was confronted as to any illegality in the same, and he was unable to respond satisfactorily. Not only the case of the Applicant regarding his residence and his claim has been belied in the above report of the site inspection; but so also even otherwise, in view of the interpretation arrived at as above, he has no case for grant of the land in question under the policy.

5. Therefore, I do not see any misreading or non-reading of the material or evidence on record, whereas, no case of upsetting the concurrent findings of the two Courts below is made out; hence, by means of a short order in the earlier part of the day this Revision Application was dismissed, and these are the reasons thereof.

J U D G E

Abdul Basit