1994SCMR1977 (PLP)

(On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench dated 2‑2‑1993 passed in W.P. No. 369‑R/1977). ‑‑‑‑S. 2‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Dispute relating to nature of property viz. whether same was agricultural or urban in character‑‑ Petitioner claimed property in question to be the agricultural one and its valid allotment in her favour‑‑‑Respondent claimed such property to be the urban immovable property and claimed allotment of same as such‑‑‑High Court dismissed petitioner's Constitutional petition on the ground that she had failed to produce any record or copy of special Jamabandi in support of her plea that the land was agricultural‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to consider whether petitioner's Constitutional petition was accompanied by copies of Revenue Record in support of her plea and whether High Court had misread evidence on record. Muhammad Ghani, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 17th May, 1994. SALEEM AKHTAR, J ‑‑The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the learned Judge in Chambers whereby the Constitution petition filed by her was dismissed.

2. The dispute relates to property bearing Khasra No. 2175 situate shah Anguriwala, Mouza Taraf Ismail measuring 1 Kanal 17 Marlas. According to the petitioner this land was treated as agricultural land and was allotted to her on l8‑3‑1965 ;n lieu of verified claim. It was recorded as Chahi Nehri in J imabandi 1943‑44 and 1948‑49 and onward up to 1960. In order to show her possession she had stated that one Allah Ditta was cultivating the land as tenant and thereafter the Municipal Committee, Multan took it on lease and was paying rent to the petitioner in respect of 14 Marlas of land. It seems that on 16‑2‑1965 PTO was issued in respect of an area measuring 415 square yards out of the land allotted to the petitioner in favour of respondent No. 1 treating it to be urban immovable property. The petitioner filed appeal and revision before the Settlement Authorities, which were dismissed and finally she filed Constitution petition which was also dismissed by the impugned judgment.

3. The learned counsel has contended that the disposal of the property as urban property in 1963 in favour of respondent No. 1 and the observation that the petitioner had failed to produce any record or copy of special Jamabandi to support that the land was agricultural land or that it was treated as an agricultural land is a result of misreading of evidence on record. The learned counsel has referred to the petition filed in the High Court and also to Annexures A and B2 to demonstrate that the copies of required revenue a records including Jamabandi were annexed with the petition. The learned counsel contended that the evidence produced on record has not been considered. Leave is granted. A.A./K‑250/S Leave granted,