1986 PLP 1804 (CLC)

Issues: (1) Whether the Courts has jurisdiction to try this suit? (2) Whether the plaintiff has become owner of the land in dispute and whether order of Collector, dated 12‑12‑1967 is, null, void and inoperative upon his rights? (3) Relief. The trial Court found issue No.1 in favour of plaintiff /respondent. Issue No.2 was found against him. In view of the findings on issue No. 2, the suit was dismissed on 12‑3‑1.969. Feeling aggrieved by this judgment Decree the respondent /plaintiff filed appeal which was entrusted to the learned Additional District Judge, Sahiwal, who, vide his order, dated 24‑7‑1969 reversed the findings of the trial Court on issue No.2 and resultantly decreed the suit as prayed for. Hence, the second appeal.

3. The learned Assistant Advocate‑General has assailed the findings of the learned Additional. District Judge on issue No. 2 alone. He submitted that since the resumed land measuring 10 Kanals was not a barren land and was cultivated one, therefore, the same could not be leased out to the respondent/ plaintiff on GROW MORE FOOD SCHEME. He explained that Khasra Girdawari Exh.D.3 shows that the land was a cultivated one and as such the Collector had validly resumed the same on 12‑12‑1967. As against this, the learned counsel for the respondent/ plaintiff has supported the judgment anti decree of the learned Additional. District Judge on the ground that there was sufficient evidence to prove that the plaintiff /respondent had become owner of the land it dispute and as such the order, dated 12‑12‑1967 of the Collector was null and void.

4. After hearing the counsel for the parties and going through the record, I find that first part of issue No.1, i.e. "Whether the plaintiff has become owner of the land in dispute?" is an issue of fact. In order to prove ownership, Abad Hussain, plaintiff /respondent produced Ghulam Bari P.W. 1, Clerk of the Colony Assistant, Arif Ali P.W. 2, the Manager, Syed Imitaz Ali Shah, P:W. 3, Clerk of the Colony Assistant and tendered in evidence documents Exh. P. 1, the order of the Collector, dated 12‑12‑1967, Exh. P. 2, order of the allotment, Exh. P.3, the proceedings of the delivery of possession, Exh.P.4, Jamabandi 1952‑53 and copy of the Roznamcha, dated 17‑5‑1967. In rebuttal, the appellant /defendant filed Exh. D.1 and D.2, the copies of Jamabandi, 1956‑57 and 1964‑65, copy of Khasra Girdawari Exh. D. 3 to D. 5, copy of challan Exh. D. 6, copy of letter, dated 12‑12‑1956 Exh. D, 7 and copy of letter, dated 23‑11‑1956 Exh. D.

8. The learned Additional District Judge has applied his mind to the evidence on the record and has given reasons for reversing the findings of the trial Court on this issue; I also find that the suit land measuring 100 Kanals was leased out to the respondent on 14‑12‑1956 and the possession was delivered to him on 26‑12‑1956, that the ownership rights were ordered to be conferred on him, vide order, dated 5‑8‑1963; that the sale price of, 100 Kanals has been deposited by the respondent /plaintiff and that the sale‑deed fee was deposited by the respondent on 10‑1‑1968. Despite what has been found above, the Collector resumed the land vide order, dated 12‑1.2‑1967 which reads as follows:‑ To my mind, the respondent/ plaintiff has successfully proved issue No. 2 and the learned Additional District Judge has rightly found him as an owner of the suit land. Furthermore, the order of the Collector being ambiguous and having been passed without giving any reason, has rightly been declared illegal and inoperative upon the right of the respondent. The learned Assistant Advocate‑General has failed p to point out any material misreading of evidence by the first appellate Court and ` as such no exception can be taken to the findings of the learned Additional District Judge on issue No. 2.

5. For what has been found above, there being no merit in this appeal, the same is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. H. B. T. R.S.A. dismissed.