2006 PLP 1141 (CLC)

MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.

On 29-8-1993 the petitioners filed a suit against the respondents. It was stated in the plaint that the petitioner No.1 and the private respondents are the successors-in-interest of Inayat deceased. He was allotted the suit-land measuring 100 Kanals under the Cooperative Farming Scheme on 12-5-1953 and the land was delivered. In para.5 of the plaint, it was stated that after the death of Inayat the petitioner No.l (his son) was given the land on 19-3-1957 as an independent allotment. The Colony Assistant declared him eligible for grant of proprietary rights vide order, dated 25-6-1966. He deposited the requisite amount in the treasury. The respondent No.2 (The Cooperative Farming Society) vide resolution dated 10-12-1984 recommended for grant of proprietary rights. The District Collector issued the allotment order on 17-5-1987. After the verification of the documents, the crown sale-deed was executed and registered in favour of petitioner No.1 on 17-8-1987 and was incorporated in the Revenue Records. Vide Mutation No.1123 attested on 19-5-1988 he gifted the land to his sons i.e. petitioners Nos.2 to

4. In August, 1987, the private respondents i.e. the co-heirs of petitioner No.1 filed an application before the District Collector that the land be mutated in favour of all the heirs of Inayat. The District Collector rejected this application on 16-1-1991 with the finding that Noora petitioner is, in fact, the original allottee. A review application was dismissed on 16-10-1991. An appeal was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner, Multan Division, on 25-4-1992. However, the revision filed by the private respondents was allowed by a learned Member, Board of Revenue, on 31-7-1993 who directed that mutation beeffected in favour of all the co-heirs. This order was sought to be declared illegal and void in the suit on the ground that the petitioner No. 1 was not the nominee of Inayat but was an independent allottee. The official as well as private respondents filed a written statement praying for dismissal of the suit asserting that the land was originally allotted to Inayat, the father of the contesting parties and even on 19-3-1957 the name of Inayat was entered but an interpolation was made and the name was changed into that of Noora petitioner No.1. Issues were framed. Evidence of the parties was recorded. The learned trial Court dismissed the suit on 9-5-1996. A learned Additional District Judge, Vehari, dismissed the first appeal of the petitioners on 18-3-1999.

2. Ch. Muhammad Hussain Jahania, Advocate/learned counsel for the petitioners contends that evidence on record has been misread and that Noora petitioner was the original allottee and that he had not got the land as a son of Inayat. He has also drawn my attention to the Cooperative Farming Laws and Scheme to assert that even otherwise Noora being the elder son was entitled to inherit the land to the exclusion of his other brothers and sisters. Messrs Ch. Abdul Ghani and Mian Mushtaq Ahmad, Advocate/learned counsel for the private respondents, on the other hand, refer to the cases of Manzoor Ahmad v. Mst. Salaman Bibi and others 1998 SCMR 388 and Fazal Shah v. Muhammad Din and others 1990 SCMR 868 to urge that in the light of the evidence available on record Inayat was the original allottee and his interest was to devolve upon all his heirs.

3. I have gone through the copies of the records, with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. I have already narrated above the contents of the pleadings. Now it will be seen that it is in the plaint itself that Inayat son of Rana was allotted the land under the Cooperative Farming Scheme on 12-7-1953 and then it is in the plaint itself that the land was allotted to the petitioner No.1 i.e. Noora after the death of his father.

4. Now it is being asserted that the allotment made on 19-3-1957 after the death of Inayat was an independent allotment in favour of Noora petitioner No.1. It is a matter of record that no order of allotment in favour of Noora petitioner No.l is available on record. On the other hand, Exh.D.2 is the copy of the order dated 12-5-1953 whereby the land was allotted to Inayat son of Rana. Now D.W. 1 is Amir Bakhsh, the Chak Manager. He had brought along the record and stated that B on 12-7-1953 the land was allotted to Inayat son of Rana temporarily and resolution Exh.D.1 was passed and recorded. Later, the allotment was made permanent in favour of Inayat on 19-3-1957 vide resolution Exh.D.3. Now the resolution was entered at page 50 of the Register brought by the said witness. The learned trial Court checked up the original Register during the course of statement of the said witness and made the following note:-- I may note here that even upon an examination of the copy Exh.D.3 the said interpolation is apparent to the naked eye. Now on 28-7-1957 the resolution Exh.D.6 was passed. This resolution narrates that Noora son of Inayat has filed an application that Square No.11 (1/2) stood allotted to his father Inayat who died two years ago and after his death he is cultivating the land. Since in the Girdawari the father was being recorded as in possession, he was declared eligible. Noora was accordingly resolved to be made a member of the Society. The witness categorically stated with reference to the records that the land was never allotted to Noora or for that matter any other child of Inayat.

5. Having thus, examined the records, I am satisfied that the learned Courts below have correctly read the evidence on record while holding that it was Inayat who was the original allottee and that there has never been an allotment in favour of Noora petitioner No.1. Now I may note here that the said cases of Manzoor Ahmad and Fazal Shah cited by the learned counsel for the respondents were decided with reference to section 27 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925 and even upon the wordings of the said section it was held that the land has to be transferred to all the heirs of the deceased allottee. In the former case, it was held that even power of nomination is not available to a Member of the Society where the surviving sons are present.

6. I must record my appreciation for the graceful conduct of Ch.. Muhammad Hussain Jahania, Advocate/learned counsel for the petitioners who has drawn my attention that the matters of Cooperative Farming Societies are governed by the Cooperative Farming Act, 1976, and the Rules framed thereunder. Now section 21 of the Cooperative Farming Act, 1976, lays down that on the death of a member, the rights, interest and liabilities of the member shall devolve upon the legal heirs and successors of the members and such legal heirs and successors shall become the member of the society in place of the deceased member. It will, thus, be seen that in the matter of Cooperative Farming Society there is no ambiguity whatsoever in the statutory provision itself as to the devolution of the interest of a member of such a society. It may further be noted that it was not a case of sale to a Cooperative Farming Society and then transfer of land to its member. The crown sale-deed was executed by the Provincial Government itself. This being so, the land had to devolve upon all the heirs of the deceased allottee i.e. Inayat son of Rana. The civil revision accordingly is dismissed but without any orders as to costs. S.A.K./N-35/L??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Revision dismissed.