2005 PLP 931 (CLC)

MUHAMMAD MOOSA K. LEGHARI, J.

These are counter-petitions, wherein the legality and validity of the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities have been called in question by two rival groups of petitioners. Accordingly those are being disposed off by a single judgment.

2. For convenience of the petitioners in C.Ps. Nos.D-527, 528, 529 and 530 of 1994 shall, hereafter be referred to as claimant while the private respondents who are petitioners in C.P. No.D-386 of 1994 shall be referred as Haris .

3. The facts giving rise to these petitions are that land approximately admeasuring 150 acres being evacuee property was allotted to claimant in satisfaction of his verified claim. Out of the allotted land the claimant surrendered an area of approximately 51 acres and opted to repurchase the same as provided under M.L.R 89/91 and also claimed to have deposited the entire amount vide challan dated 2-6-1982 thus, got the land fully paid up. However, the Barrage Authorities granted the disputed land to the Haris showing the same as Na-Kabooli land, vide order, dated 29-4-1991.

4. It seems that the order of grant of land to the Haris was challenged before learned Additional Commissioner Sukkur Division. Learned Additional Commissioner vide order, dated 21-12-1991 declared the order of grant of land passed by the Colonization Officer as illegal and held that the land so granted was the property of the Central Government. The said order of the Additional Commissioner was however, challenged in appeal and revision petition by both the groups of petitioners before the learned Member (Judicial) Board of Revenue, Sindh Hyderabad.

5. Learned Member (Judicial), Board of Revenue, Sindh Hyderabad after hearing the parties arrived at a conclusion that the order passed by the Colonization Officer, Sukkur Barrage was appropriate. He accordingly set aside the order, dated 21-2-1991 passed by the Additional Commissioner dated 21-12-1991 and maintained the order passed by the Colonization Officer, Sukkur Barrage, by his order dated 24-8-1992. However, on review petitions filed on behalf of the claimants learned Member (Judicial) Board of Revenue altered his previous order observing that the grants in favour of Haris were made during the ban period those were illegal and against the Government policy, thus, he cancelled those grants, vide order, dated 30-8-1994.

6. Those two orders passed by the learned Member (Judicial) Board of Revenue have been impugned in Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court.

7. We have heard Messrs Jagdesh R. Malani and Mr. Muhammad Younus Behan, Advocates for the private contestants. Besides we have also heard Mr. Masood A. Noorani, learned Additional Advocate-General, Sindh for Province of Sindh.

8. It was contended by the learned counsel for the claimants that Syed Ghulam Mustafa Shah has voluntarily repurchased the excess land and paid instalments through a valid challan issued by the competent Authorities. As such the subsequent inclusion of disputed land in schedule and disposal thereof was unlawful.

9. It was argued on behalf of Haris that the order passed by learned Member (Judicial) Board of Revenue, Sindh dated 24-8-1992 whereby he upheld the order of the Colonization Officer was legal. However, subsequent order, dated 30-8-1994 passed in the review application whereby he cancelled the grants made in favour of respondent was illegal in view of the fact that the land was granted by the Colonization Officer, Sukkur Barrage in an open Katchehri.

10. Learned A.A.-G. however, strenuously supported both the orders passed by the learned Member (Judicial) Board of Revenue, Sindh urging that the same were valid and lawful. He, therefore, prayed for dismissal of these petitions.

11. The arguments have been considered, impugned orders have been scrutinized and the material placed on record has been examined.

12. The learned Member (Judicial) Board of Revenue, Sindh has observed that no order for repurchase of surrendered land by Syed Ghulam Mustafa Shah (as optee purchaser) was available on record. Hence the payment of purchase price was in collusion with Revenue staff. The land in question on its surrender under M.L.R. 89 was entered in the Revenue Record in the name of Central Government.

13. Learned counsel for the Claimants was unable to place on record or point out from the record any order to arrive at a conclusion that any such order for repurchase of surrendered land by deceased Syed Ghulam Mustafa Shah (as optee purchaser) was ever issued by the competent authorities and was in existence. Due to non-availability of such order on the record there are strong and unrebutable reasons to hold that the payment of challan was made in collusion with the lower staff of the Revenue Department. The order passed by the learned Member (Judicial) Board of Revenue, Sindh was thus, unexceptionable.

14. So far as cancelling the grant of land in favour of Haris is concerned the perusal of the order, dated 30-8-1994 passed by the learned Member (Judicial) Board of Revenue, Sindh reveals that the disposal of disputed land in favour of respondents during the ban period was illegal and against the Government policy.

15. Learned counsel appearing for the Haris was unable to place on record any material worth the name so as to controvert the findings recorded by the learned Member (Judicial) Board of Revenue, Sindh to the effect that grant of the disputed land in favour of Haris was illegal as the same was disposed of against the State policy and during the period of ban imposed by the Government.

16. On close examination of the impugned orders we have arrived at an irresistible conclusion that the two orders passed by the learned Member (Judicial) Board of Revenue, Sindh were neither illegal, nor perverse nor suffering from any jurisdictional error, thus, need not be interfered with. The same are just, legal proper and based on valid and cogent reasons.

17. The petitions being devoid of merits, are therefore, dismissed. H.B.T./G-49/K Petitions dismissed.