1988 PLP 836 (MLD)

This First Appeal is directed against the Judgment/decree dated 20-4-1980 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sanghar in first Class Suit No. 12 of 1965 dismissing the suit of late Ali Mohammad son of Badruddin (hereinafter referred to as the deceased plaintiff) which was filed fur declaration and permanent injunction in respect of a portion of plots of land bearing Nos. 307 and 308 situated in Sanghar Town, measuring 1760 sq feet.

2. The case of deceased plaintiff was that he was allotted the suit land by the Deputy Commissioner by his order dated 11-6-1957 out of which he had let out a portion to defendant No.2. One Haji Muhammad Siddique was also impleaded as defendant No.3 but his case was that he had not taken any portion of land on rent from the deceased plaintiff but he had purchased from the third person. Be that as it may, the suit was resisted by both the defendants as well as by the Provincial Government which was defendant No.l. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties as many as twelve issues were framed. The deceased plaintiff in support of the suit examined Jai Ramdas (Ext. 36), Clerk of the Office of the Deputy Commissioner who produced original application of the deceased plaintiff dated 4-6-1957 (Ext. 37) containing on its margin an order dated 10-8 1957 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Sanghar (Ext.38).

2. Shamsuddin, City Surveyor, Sanghar (Ext.40) who produced the original statement of Abdul Majid, Defendant No. 2(Ext.41), letter dated 19-2-1955 written by the Deputy Collector, Shahdadpur to the Collector, Sanghar (Ext. 42). The deceased plaintiff examined himself as Ext.44, whereas, defendants Nos.2 ~. and 3 have examined themselves as Exts.50 and

51. The learned Additional District Judge after hearing the parties, by the above judgment/decree dismissed the above suit. The deceased plantiff being aggrieved by the above judgment has filed the present appeal.

3. In support of the above appeal Mr. Suleman Kassim, learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently urged that since the order of allotment passed by the Deputy Commissioner in favour of the deceased plaintiff on 11-6-1957 was a final order he could not have revised the same by the order dated 10-8-1957 whereby allotting a portion of the allotted land to defendant No.2. In my view, the above contention is more or less academic as after the above orders the matter was agitated by the deceased plaintiff before the Sind Board of Revenue which by its order dated 29-6-1963 passed a fresh order dividing the plot into three portions and allocating the same to the three contesting parties as follows:

1. Defendant Abdul Majid 600 sq.ft.

2. Defendant Haji Mohd Siddiq 504 sq.ft.

3. Defendant Late Ali Mohd 656 sq.ft. 17.60 sq.ft" In First Appeal No.55 of 1965 a learned single Judge of this Court by a Judgment dated 3-11-1976 has held that the above order of the Board of Revenue is with jurisdiction. In this view of the matter, I am inclined to hold that the learned trial Court could not have granted the decree for declaration that the Deputy Commissioner's order dated 10-8-1957 or the Commissioner's order dated 25-1-1958 were without jurisdiction. The order in the field is the order of the Board of Revenue which has not been impugned in the present suit and which was upheld by the High Court in the earlier litigation.

4. The appeal has no merit and it is dismissed with no order as to costs. M.Y.H/M-489/K Appeal dismissed.