1990 PLP 20 (SCMR)

Talmiz Burney, Advocate Supreme. Court with Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents. Date of hearing: 24th April, 1989. SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment of the High Court of Sind and Baluchistan, dated 21‑12‑1972 dismissing the appeal from an order made by an officer exercising the functions of the Chief Settlement Commissioner under section 4(3) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958.

2. The dispute in this appeal relates to four properties bearing City Survey Nos. C/2117, C/2121, C/2122 and C/2123 situate in Shahi Bazar, Hyderabad City. These were treated as evacuee properties and transferred to respondents No.l to 4 by separate orders made on different dates falling between 1959 and 1964. On 4‑1‑1967 the Evacuee Trust Property Board made a reference to the Chief Settlement Commissioner under section 4(3), Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 to seek a declaration to the effect that the said properties were evacuee trust properties as at the time of independence these were attached to Primusingh's Tikano. In support of its reference, the Board entirely relied upon the extracts from the Local Property Register Cards. The reference was heard by Mr. H.M. Azhar who was vested with the powers of the Chief Settlement Commissioner. By an order, dated 30‑7‑1969, he rejected the reference with the following observations:‑‑ "I find that the following entries are made in the extracts Exts. 2 to 5 (Name of holder‑‑Trust Property belonging to Primusingh Ticano‑‑by inheritance). These entries are vague and inconclusive. They do not show whether the alleged trust was a private or a public trust, and why it was to be inherited. These entries are not supported by any oral or documentary evidence and are challenged by the other side. These solitary entries are not adequate evidence to establish the contention of the applicant trust. At least 3 of these properties were transferred to the respondents by December, 1959 and the fourth No.C/2123 on the 31st November, 1964, by the Settlement Department. These transfers were in the knowledge of the applicant trust. This application was filed after considerable delay in January, 1967, there can be no justification for this long and inordinate delay." From the order of Mr. H.M. Azhar, the Evacuee Trust Board filed an appeal before the High Court under section 4(4), Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act. A learned Single Judge dismissed the appeal after holding as follows:‑‑ "The only evidence on which reliance is placed is extract from the City Survey records containing these entries. Name of holder‑‑Trust property belonging to Primusingh Ticano‑‑by inheritance". In Miscellaneous Appeal No.l of 1970 I have held that extract from City Survey records or even record of rights is not sufficient evidence on which it should be held that a property is attached to a religious or charitable trust."

3. Three out of four respondents in this appeal are dead. Two of them, namely, respondents Nos. 1 and 3, died during the pendency of this appeal, the third, namely, respondent No.2, was already dead when the reference was made before the Chief Settlement Commissioner. No effort was made to implead their legal representatives. Thus, so far as these respondents are concerned, the appeals are not properly constituted.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Property Register Cards were a part of the record prepared by public officers in the course of their official duties. That being so, a presumption of correctness was attached to the entries made therein. Since in the said cards the properties in dispute were shown to be a part of a Tikano, it was for the respondents to show that these did not belong to a trust. As the respondents did not lead any evidence whatsoever to rebut the said presumption, the High Court and the officer exercising the functions of the Chief Settlement Commissioner were clearly wrong in holding that the properties in dispute were not part of an evacuee trust.

5. It is no doubt true that initially a presumption of correctness is to be drawn in favour of public record prepared by public officials in the discharge of their official duties but then this rule does not apply to a record where the entries are self‑contradictory. Here, the entries in the Property Register Cards read as follows:‑‑ Source of origin: Trust property belonging to Primusingh Tikano By Inheritance. Now, if the properties in question belonged to Tikano, the origin of title could not have been inheritance. No effort was made by the appellant Board to reconcile these seemingly inconsistent entries. In the circumstances, the High Court as well as the officer exercising the functions of the Chief Settlement Commissioner were justified in not relying upon them to hold the properties in dispute as trust properties. We are, therefore, unable to find any basis for interference with the judgment of the High Court. This appeal is without any merit and is hereby dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. A.A./D‑58/S Appeal dismissed.