2008 PLP 833 (CLC)

MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.

On 21-9-2006, respondents Nos.1 to 4 filed a suit against the petitioner and respondent No.5. In the plaint, it was stated that Hansa Khan son of Chotay Khan caste Mayo and Nazir Khan son of Mungal caste Mayo Dehngel were allotted 12-1/2 acres land in Jori Scheme. Hansa Khan also owned some land otherwise in the village which was adjusted and the total area allotted was 58 Kanals, 16 Marlas in equal share. It is the share of Nazir Khan which is in dispute. The proprietary rights were also conferred upon the allottees and the land measuring 29 Kanals, 6 Marlas falling to the share of said Nazir with reference to register Haqdaran-e-Zamin for the year 1982-83 stands described in para.1 of the plaint. The said Nazir Khan has died and the respondents are the widow and children of the said Nazir Khan. They are owners of the said land while Hansa Khan is cultivating the land as tenant. The petitioner had got nothing to do with the said suit-land. He filed an application for correction of entries stating that his name was Suleman alias Nazir son of Mangal. Respondent No.5 proceeded to allow the said application on 2-9-1986 and the correction of name was allowed. The said order was challenged as being illegal and void on several grounds mentioned in the plaint. The petitioner contested the suit with the contention that he is Nazir Khan who was allotted land along with Hansa Khan. His main reliance was on the fact that his photograph along with photo of Hansa is present on the relevant documents. Issues were framed. Evidence of the parties was recorded. Learned trial Court decreed the suit on 26-1-1991. The learned Additional District Judge dismissed the first appeal filed by the petitioner on 18-7-1992.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that presence of photograph of the petitioner on the allotment document notwithstanding, that his name is Suleman is sufficient to prove that he is Nazir Khan to whom the land was allotted.

3. No one has turned up on behalf of the respondents.

4. I have gone through the copies of the records with the assistance of learned counsel for the petitioner. The allotment document is Exh.P.5. It narrates that the land has been allotted to Hansa Khan son of Chhotay Khan and Nazir Khan son of Mungal. The caste of both the persons is Mayo Dehngel. The said Hansa Khan has appeared as P.W. to state that the land was allotted to him and the said Nazir Khan who used to jointly cultivate the land and that after his death, he has been paying the, share' of produce to the respondents. He further stated that Suleman respondent is son of Mungal but his caste is Mayo Pahat. Suleman petitioner himself appeared as D.W.

1. He has given his particulars Suleman son of Mungal caste Mayo. According to him, his Jori was made with Hansa Khan who was his Khaloo and himself and because he was called as Nazir, the name was written accordingly. According to him, name of father of Nazir (predecessor-in-interest of the respondents) was Sultan. In cross-examination, he stated that in his N.I.C., his name is recorded as Suleman. In the claim form as well, his name was recorded as Suleman and his vote is recorded in the same name. He was confronted and he admitted that allotment is recorded in the name of Nazir Khan caste Mayo Dhengel. He was confronted that Jamabandi Exh.P.3 pertained to his land and he admitted that he has been recorded as Suleman Khan caste Mungal Pahat. He was again confronted and he had admitted that in. no document, he was described as Suleman alias Nazir.

5. At this stage, learned counsel draws my attention to documents Exh.D.1 and Exh.D.2. Exh.D.1 is the copy of death entry regarding the death of Nazir son of Sultan son of Mungal Mayo aged 40 years on 18-10-1966. Exh!D.2 is the birth entry of one Nazir son of Sultan born on 7-1-1967. Apart from the fact that there is no evidence on record that these documents pertained to Nazir, the father of the respondents. Upon a bare reading, the documents have no nexus with each other whereas Exh.D. 1 is the death entry pertaining to 40 years old man who died on 18-10-1996. Exh.D.2 is the birth entry of a boy who was borne on 7-1-1967. Going by the said contention of the learned counsel, death of the said Nazir son of Sultan preceded his birth which is rather impossible.

6. Having thus, examined the record, I do not find any ground being made out for interference with the concurrent findings recorded by the learned Courts below which are fully supported by the record. The civil revision accordingly is dismissed. No order as to costs. H.B.T./M-35/L Revision dismissed.