1988 PLP 1198 (CLC)

A.N. Qaisrani for Respondent No.

1. Islam All Qureshi for Legal Heirs of Respondent No.2. Date of hearing: 23rd February, 1986. This petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 is directed against the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Multan, dated 18‑10‑1977 whereby it was held that the agreement of association was duly executed by Saadullah petitioner in favour of Ghulam Murtaza respondent; petitioner's request for cancellation thereof was rejected and the agreement in question was approved.

2. Facts briefly stated, are that the petitioner purchased Plot No.34 Ward No. 8‑M, Chah Sewrianwala, Multan, in an open auction on 20‑9‑1962 for a sum of Rs.5,500 against its reserved price of Rs.3,

790. He surrendered his full rights in favour of Ghulam Murtaza respondent through an agreement of association, dated 3‑9‑1973, which was presented before the Deputy Settlement Commissioner on the same day but no order appears to have been passed thereon. Subsequently, petitioner moved an application for cancellation of the said agreement stating that he had not executed it.

3. Both the parties led evidence in support of their respective contentions. Muhammad Yousaf, Petition Writer appeared to depose that the agreement of association was written by him at the request of both the parties and it was read out to them and Saadullah petitioner put his signature thereon. Muhammad Hussain, a witness of the agreement, stated that he was asked by Saadullah petitioner to help him in selling the plot in dispute as he was in dire need of money. He then contacted Ghulam Murtaza respondent who agreed to purchase the plot at Rs.5,000, which amount he paid to the petitioner and the agreement of association was executed between the parties. He further stated that the agreement was attested by the Oath Commissioner in the presence of the petitioner. Jan Muhammad, another witness of the agreement, supported the execution thereof by the petitioner. Oath Commissioner was also examined and he deposed that he attested the agreement of association in the presence of both parties. Ghulam Murtaza respondent appeared to state that he was in occupation of the plot in dispute which he had purchased from Saadullah petitioner for a sum of Rs.5,000 and Saadullah entered into an agreement of association with him. He also deposed about its attestation by Oath Commissioner. Saadullah petitioner, on the other hand, denied that he had sold the plot in dispute to Ghulam Murtaza respondent. He also denied the execution of the agreement of association. He admitted in cross‑examination that he had taken back compensation book from the Settlement Department and sold entire compensation amount available to some other person. He stated that he did not pay the auction price as no notice in that behalf was given to him.

4. Learned Deputy Settlement Commissioner after considering the aforementioned evidence came to the conclusion that 'the agreement of association was originally executed by Saadullah and now he has changed his mind due to high prices of the land in comparison to the year 1970 and wanted to take benefit of high prices'. He further held that the witnesses who appeared to support the execution of the agreement by the petition had no enmity with the petitioner. Learned Deputy Settlement Commissioner also considered the fact of the petitioner having sold his entire available compensation amount and drew an inference there from that if the petitioner had intended to retain the plot, he would not have sold the compensation amount and instead utilized it for paying the auction price. With these finding, learned Deputy Settlement Commissioner dismissed the petitioner Application for cancellation of the agreement of association and approved the agreement accepting it as a genuine document vide the impugned order.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the Deputy Settlement Commissioner was not competent to go into the question of genuineness or otherwise of the agreement execution whereof was denied by the petitioner. Learned counsel has not been able to cite any authority in support of the submission made by him. Argument of the learned counsel has otherwise no merit. Question as to whether the agreement of association was duly executed by the petitioner or it was a bogus document was in dispute before the Deputy Settlement Commissioner. He was, therefore, under an obligation to resolve this controversy one way or the other before passing any order accepting or rejecting it. It may be noted that the learned Deputy Settlement Commissioner gave opportunity to both the parties to lead evidence in support of their respective pleas which they duly availed and the petitioner is not shown to have questioned the jurisdiction of the Deputy Settlement) Commissioner to determine the genuineness of the agreement.

6. As regards the finding of the learned Deputy Settlement Commissioner that the agreement of association was a genuine document which was duly executed by the petitioner after having received Rs.5,000 from the respondent, it is clearly supported by the evidence on record which has been duly appraised by the learned Deputy Settlement Commissioner. As noted above, the learned officer has given good reasons in support of his conclusion. In any case, the) finding recorded by the learned Deputy Settlement Commissioner being B purely one of fact which is based on evidence, it is not for this Court sitting in constitutional jurisdiction to re‑appraise the evidence and to come to its own independent finding. The impugned finding is, therefore, not amenable to review in writ jurisdiction.

7. In view of the foregoing discussion, the impugned order o the learned Deputy Settlement Commissioner approving/accepting the agreement of association does not call for any interference in writ jurisdiction. This petition, therefore, fails, and the same is dismissed but there shall be no order as to costs. H . B . T . /S‑210/L Petition dismissed.