2009 PLP 21 (CLC)
Mrs. SHAHIDA ZOHRA — Petitioner Versus PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT OF SINDH through Secretary (LU) Board of Revenue, Sindh and 4 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2009 PLP 21 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Mrs. SHAHIDA ZOHRA — Petitioner Versus PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT OF SINDH through Secretary (LU) Board of Revenue, Sindh and 4 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act (XI of 1957) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2009 PLP 21 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act (XI of 1957) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2009 PLP 21 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2009 PLP 21 (CLC) (Mrs. SHAHIDA ZOHRA — Petitioner Versus PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT OF SINDH through Secretary (LU) Board of Revenue, Sindh and 4 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- ----S. 5---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Constitutional petition---Cancellation of allotted land---Petitioner had claimed land in dispute on the ground that said land was purchased by her from vendor vide registered sale-deed, while the vendor had purchased said land from its previous owner---Proper sale-deed was duly registered between the petitioner and vendor and Form-II was also issued from time to time In the name of vendor and said previous owner at the relevant time---Counsel for respondent had contended that land in dispute was cancelled and that said cancellation order passed by the Deputy Commissioner still stood intact---When registered sale-deed and Form-II, duly issued from time to time were available with the Mukhtiarkar then how Form-II had been issued and why the petitioner was not intimated on first occasion---When there was a registered sale-deed and Form-II duly stamped by Taluka Mukhtiarkar, case of the petitioner was to be ascertained by the Member Board of Revenue, as to whether her case fell within the purview of cancellation order or not and if the petitioner had acquired the plot in dispute legally and properly, then she would not be affected by the cancellation order---Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly.
- Muhammad Sarfraz Sulehry for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 5
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199
Constitutional petition
Cancellation of allotted land
Petitioner had claimed land in dispute on the ground that said land was purchased by her from vendor vide registered sale-deed, while the vendor had purchased said land from its previous owner
Proper sale-deed was duly registered between the petitioner and vendor and Form-II was also issued from time to time In the name of vendor and said previous owner at the relevant time
Counsel for respondent had contended that land in dispute was cancelled and that said cancellation order passed by the Deputy Commissioner still stood intact
When registered sale-deed and Form-II, duly issued from time to time were available with the Mukhtiarkar then how Form-II had been issued and why the petitioner was not intimated on first occasion
When there was a registered sale-deed and Form-II duly stamped by Taluka Mukhtiarkar, case of the petitioner was to be ascertained by the Member Board of Revenue, as to whether her case fell within the purview of cancellation order or not and if the petitioner had acquired the plot in dispute legally and properly, then she would not be affected by the cancellation order
Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
The only issue involved in this petition is that the petitioner is claiming land measuring 9600 square feet in Dhabeji, Deh Gharo, Taluka Mirpur Sakro, District Thatta, on the ground that said land has been purchased by her from one Abdul Razzaq vide sale agreement, dated 20-2-2004 while Abdul Razzaq had purchased the said land from its previous owner Jalal in the year 2002. He submits that proper sale-deed was also duly registered on 8-3-2004 between the petitioner and Abdul Razzaq and Form-II was also issued from time to time in the names of Abdul Razzaq and previous owner Jalal Khan at the relevant times, which is not reflected in the Government records. According to counsel for the Province, he has the right to hold the land on the ground that the ancestral land while according to learned counsel for Land Utilization Department Mr. Muhammad Ahmed Pirzada, the land was cancelled by order, dated 10-11-1997. Mr. Pirzada, learned counsel for Land Utilization Department, states that the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, dated 10-11-1997 still stands intact and it has not been challenged as the said order was necessary keeping in view fraudulent transactions, which were going on in the area on the ground of Mourosi Plot/land, he has termed all these Form-II as a fake documents. While Mukhtiarkar, who is present in Court, states that certain land record has been burnt in December, 2007; however, Mr. Pirzada submits that since order of Deputy Commissioner is there, hence at the most petitioners can approach the Member (LU), Board of Revenue, appealing against the said order, which is to be ascertained and considered by him. After hearing the arguments of learned counsel, we have observed that registered sale-deed is available while Form-II are also issued from time to time and if the order, dated 10-11-1997 was available with the Mukhtiarkar then how Form-II has been issued and why the petitioner was not intimated on first accession. In the circumstances, when there is a registered sale-deed and Form-II duly stamped by Taluka Mukhtiarkar, we are of the view that the case of the petitioner is to be ascertained by the Member (LU), Board of Revenue, as to whether his case falls within the purview of order, dated 10-11-1997 or not and if the petitioner has acquired the plot legally and properly then he will not be affected by the order of 1997. The findings by the Member (LU) to be given within a period of three months. The petition stands disposed of. H.B.T./S-90/K Order accordingly.