2000 PLP 1677 (MLD)

SARDAR SAID MUHAMMAD KHAN, C.J.‑‑‑‑This appeal with leave of the Court, has been directed against the order of the High Court, dated 18‑11‑1997, whereby the writ petition filed by respondent No.1 was accepted.

2. The brief facts of the case are that allotment of plot comprising Survey No. 1184 situate in village Blah, Mirpur, was made in favour of one Mst. Zainab Bi. It is alleged that the land comprising Survey No. 1184, measuring 10 Marlas, was in the ownership of the appellants and the same was not acquired by the M.D.A. and, thus, the said marking of the plot was illegal and the allotment in favour of Mst.' Zainab Bi was without jurisdiction. The allotment in favour of Mst. Zainab Bi was made by the Allotment Committee in the year 1975 while Mst. Zainab Bi died on 27‑7‑1978. However, the allotment from the name of Mst. Zainab Bi alongwith other allotments was cancelled through a Government notification and the Revising Authority did not restore the allotment of Mst. Zainab Bi; her case was dismissed in default. One Fazal Karim, who as an attorney for Mst. Zainab Bi, transferred the said plot to Saeed Ahmad who further transferred the said plot in favour of Riaz Qureshi, one of the appellants herein. It is also alleged that the transfer made by Fazal Karim as attorney for Mst. Zainab Bi was void because Mst. Zainab Bi had died on 27‑7‑1978 whereas the transfer of the plot by Fazal Karim, attorney, was made on 5‑9‑1987, i.e., after the death of Mst. Zainab Bi. It is contended that the power of attorney, if any, had come to an end on the death of Mst. Zainab Bi and, thus the subsequent transfer of the plot was otherwise illegal. The High Court has expressed the view that in presence of the judgment of the Sub -Judge and the fact that allotment of Mst. Zainab Bi was not restored by the Revising Authority, the disputed land was in the ownership of respondent No. l because it was not acquired by the Mirpur Development Authority. Thus, the allotment in favour of Mst. Zainab Bi is illegal and consequently, the subsequent transfers of the plot by Abdul Karim and others are also of no; legal consequence.

3. It has been argued by Mr. Liaquat Ali Khan, Advocate on behalf of the appellants, that allotment of the disputed plot was made in favour of Mst. Zainab Bi, deceased in the year 1975. Thereafter, the land was first gifted by Abdul Karim, the attorney for Mst. Zainab Bi, in favour of Saeed Ahmad respondent, who subsequently sold the land to Riaz Qureshi; he in turn sold the land to Allah Ditta, toe appellant herein, for a consideration of Rupees three lacs. He has contended that the appellant was a bona fide purchaser of the plot in question and thus, the respondent has no locus standi to challenge the allotment of Mst. Zainab Bi or the subsequent transfers after twenty years of the allotment in favour of 'the said allottee. The learned counsel has further argued that presumption is in favour of the fact that land in dispute was acquired by the Government and thereafter was marked as a plot. He has contended that this presumption has not been rebutted by the respondent. The learned counsel has further argued that Mehboob Alam, respondent, got a decree from Sub‑Judge without impleading Zainab Bi as party and thus, the same was of no avail to him.

4. In reply Mr. Riaz Alam, the learned counsel for respondent No.1, argued that Abdul Karim who initially gifted the land to Saeed Ahmad did so as attorney for Zainab Bi. He has argued that Zainab Bi died on 27‑7‑1978 as is evident from the suit which was filed by Abdul Karim in the Civil Court. Thus, the gift made by Abdul Karim as attorney for Zainab Bibi iii favour of Saeed Ahmad in the year 1990 i.e., after the death of Zainab Bi, was of no legal consequence; all the subsequent transfers are nullity in the eye of law. The learned counsel has also argued that apart from the fact that Mehboob Alam has got a decree of Civil Court according to which the land was not acquired by the Government, a suit which was also filed by Abdul Karim, the attorney for Mst. Zainab Bi, claiming the ownership of disputed plot was dismissed. Thus, the learned counsel maintained that all these facts are ample proof of the fact that the appellant, herein, had no title to the land and as such had no case.

5. We have given due: consideration to the matter. A perusal of the record shows that in fact, according to the case of Abdul Karim, the attorney for Mst. Zainab Bi, Mst. Zainab Bi died in the year 1978 whereas the land was gifted away to Saeed Ahmad by Abdul Karim as her attorney in the year 1990. Evidently, this transfer was of no legal consequence and all the subsequent transfers do not vest any title in the transferees including the appellant herein. The decree of the Civil Court to the effect that the land in dispute was not acquired by the Government and in fact remained in the ownership of the respondent has not been rebutted by any tangible evidence. Therefore, we find no fault in the finding of the High Court in issuing writ filed by the respondent herein. In the light of what has been stated above, finding no force in this appeal it is hereby dismissed with costs. H.B.T'/45/SC(AJ&K) Appeal dismissed.