1995 PLP 794 (MLD)

This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 19‑3‑1969 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Muzaffargarh, dismissing the appellant's appeal against the judgment and decree dated 30‑10‑1967 passed by the learned trial Court through which the declaratory suit filed by the respondents was decreed.

2. The respondents filed a suit for declaration that they were owners of land measuring 812 Kanals 3 Marlas and that Mutation No.635 was illegal and void and of no legal effect.

3. The land in dispute was originally owned by one Nazira. Plaintiffs Nos.10 and 12 purchased land measuring 162 Kanals 10 Marlas through Mutation No.398 entered on 6-1‑1953 and attested on 15‑12‑1953. Nazira further transferred land measuring 649 Kanals 16 Marlas to plaintiffs Nos.l to 9 through Mutation No.421 entered on 1‑7‑1953 and attested on 28‑6‑1954. These two mutations were subsequently cancelled through Mutation No.635 sanctioned on 19‑12‑1962 and restored the name, of Nazira as the owner of the land. This was done on the ground that the land had been acquired through Notifications published on 30‑1‑1 3, 2‑7‑1951 and 4‑3‑1955 (Exhs. D7, D8 and D9).

4. The case of the appellant was that since the land had been acquired through the said notifications, therefore, the sale of the same through the previous two mutations sanctioned in favour of the respondents was void, therefore, the said Notifications were cancelled and Nazira was to be treated as owner who was to be given land in return.

5. The case of the respondents was that the property vested in the authority only after the award was pronounced and possession taken and prior to that the authority was not vested with ownership rights and ownership rights of Nazira were not extinguished, therefore, the sales made by Nazira in between the publication of notifications and final acquisition when the property vested in the authority were valid and each set of plaintiffs was to be treated as owner of that much land in its own rights as purchased by them.

6. The two Courts below held that the property had not vested in the authority at the time of publication of preliminary notifications for acquisition whereas it vested only after the award was delivered and possession taken and before that he was owner and the respondents through sale from him were vested with rights of ownership, therefore, the impugned Mutation. No.635 attested on 19‑12‑1962 was void and the respondents/plaintiffs were declared to be the owners of the land.

7. Learned Additional Advocate‑General was not able to pursuade me that the view taken by the two Courts below suffers from any illegality or legal infirmity. The respondents were rightly held to be the owners of the land through mutations sanctioned in their name, therefore, each set of respondents/plaintiffs was to be treated as owner of that much land purchased by them in their own rights. The consequences would be that the right of each set of respondents as owners through the said sales shall have to be determined and the land given to them according to law at the relevant time when the acquisition became effective as held by the two Courts below.

8. No case has been made out for interference under section 100, C.P.C. The appeal fails which is thereby dismissed in limine. AA./A‑720 Appeal dismissed.