P L D 1973 Karachi 632 (PLP)

Bangrio r/o own village Taluka Karachi, District Karachi. 125 You are hereby granted Non‑Class No. 15-0 Name Village Deb. Gujrio Taluka, Karachi from year 1936/37 at the rate of Rs. 2‑8‑0 per acre for ever vide sanction No. 1101 dated 28/3 of the Collector Karachi. Dt. 28th April 1936. On original (Sd.) Illegible Mukhtiarkar Karachi. 28/4". Allah Dad also relied on the correspondence exchanged between the Revenue Department and the Collector's office which are (Exhs. 7 to 15) on file, relating to his claim of rent for the requisi tioned land, in which he has been referred to as owner `khatedar' and 'landlord'. He also relies on the fact that rent for the requisitioned land amounting to Rs. 1,024‑5-0 or the period 19‑1‑1943 to 31‑1‑1947 was paid to him. In cross‑examination he admitted inter alia that he had no other document of title to the land in question in his favour except the said Ijazatrama (Exh. 6). He also stated that the copy of the application for grant of the land is not available.

7. Mohammad Umer, Supervising Tepedar, in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Karachi who was examined on behalf of the intervenors produced the certified copy of the entry in the record of rights with regard to the land icy question as (Exh. 30/1). The date of the entry shown is 31-5‑1934; the transferor anal the transferee are shown as "the Government", and under the column, "nature of rights", the following appears: "Village Bhangrio was measured 15‑

0. Entry made according to ghat wadh form No.

15. The area of remaining No. 125 is 234‑23." He also produced a certified copy of the 'ghat wadh' form (addition and subtraction) relating to Deh Gujro in which the land is situated as (Exh. 30/2). This shows that Nakhlass No. 125 had a total area 249 acres and 23 ghuntas of which 15‑0 acres were subtracted and the cause of the substraction is shown in the following words :‑ "Sanctioned for Village Bhangrio vide sanction No. 2749 dated 29th September 1933 of Collector of Karachi and vide sanction No. 472 dated 19‑10‑1933 of Assistant Collector, Thatta." The witness stated that the sanction letter No. 2749 dated 29‑9-1933 referred to in the above column is not available In the office; nor is the other letter of sanction referred to as No. 472 dated 19‑10‑1933.

9. I have considered the evidence and the documents produced in this case. In my opinion, Allah Dad's claim to the exclusive title to the land comprised in village Bhangrio has not been established. In the first place, the authenticity of the "Ijazatnama" (Exh. 6) has not been established, as only a plain copy of it has been produced. The sanction letter referred to as bearing No. 1101 dated 28‑3‑1936 has also not been produced. It is also doubtful whether it could be construed as a grant of land, which the Collector had power to make subject to the orders of the Commissioner under section 37 of the Sind Land Revenue Code, 1879. Mr. Zulfiqar Ali Valiani, learned Advocate for the respondent submitted that the "Ijazatnama" should be construed as a 'kubullyat' land issued under section 60 of that Code. But in the absence of a lease document or agreement, I cannot accept this submission. On the other hand, the entries in the record of rights (Exhs. 30/1 and 30/2) are evidence of the facts recorded in them under section 35 of the Evidence Act, 1872 and under section 135‑J of the Sind Land Revenue Code, 1879, they shall be presumed to be true until the contrary is proved. The entry in the record‑of‑rights (Exh. 30/1) shows chat the name of the transferee is the 'government' and not Allah Dad, The form "ghat wadh" (addition and substraction) (Exh. 30/2) also shows that 15 acres of the land out of Nakhlass 125 were deducted arid the cause of the deduction is shown as sanctioned "for village Bhangrio" on 29‑9‑1933. Allah Dad its not produced any other document to rebut the presumption of the correctness of the above entries in the record‑of‑rights except the "Ijazatnama" (Exh. 6) which has not been proved as authentic. It also stands falsified by the above‑mentioned entries in the record‑of‑rights (Exhs. 30/1 and 30/2). I therefore agree with the submission of Mr. Sami Ahmed for the Intervenors that the land was given to Allah Dad for a village and not as his private property. In my opinion, the payment of 'malkano' (development charges) by Allah Dad is an equivocal piece of evidence as he may have done so being the headman of the village. Equally, without legal significance, is the fact that rent for the requisitioned village was paid to him. It may be that no one else came forward to demand it. I am, therefore, of the opinion that Allah Dad has not discharged the burden of establishing exclusive title to the land comprised in village Bhangrio.

9. Mr. Valiani next submitted that if Allah Dad has failed to establish his exclusive title to the land, the Intervenors have not succeeded either in establishing their title to it. In this connec tion, he submitted that none of the Intervenors has produced any documentary evidence to support his title. He also requested me to consider other circumstances which showed that none of the Intervenors really had any title and that the Deputy Commis sioner had acceded to their claims because of some influence and pressure which were brought to bear upon him. This has been denied by Taj Mohammad who stated in his evidence that as there are five main families in the village of which Allah Dad and the four intervenors were the respective headmen, the compensa tion is to be shared equally among the five families. As stated earlier, the intervenors have not challenged the award of appor tionment. I cannot therefore go behind the award and enquire into their title on the abjection of a person who has failed to establish his own.

10. In the circumstances, apportionment of the compensation moneys awarded by the Deputy Commissioner under his award dated 8‑8‑1968 is confirmed and the reference is answered accordingly. K. B. A. Reference answered.