Official acts

Respondent/plaintiff claimed to be owner of suit plots and alleged that his real brother applicant/defendant sought leases of certain plots in his name in collusion with authorities, after getting leases cancelled from his name

Suit was dismissed by Trial Court but Lower Appellate Court decreed the same in favour of respondent/plaintiff

Validity

Collusion between applicant/defendant and authorities was not proved, therefore, presumption under Art. 129 (e) of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 was applicable that official act had been regularly performed

Leases in favour of applicant/defendant were given by authorities as per rules and procedure

Rent cases filed against respondent/plaintiff and different tenants were decided in favour of applicant/defendant and judgment passed by High Court was in field

Lower Appellate Court did not exercise jurisdiction properly and reached a wrong conclusion by misreading evidence which was beyond the parameters of law

High Court set aside judgment and decree passed by Lower Appellate Court and restored that of Trial Court

Revision was allowed in, circumstances.

Presumption of regularity attached to official acts cannot be rebutted only by making vague allegations.

Petitioners/plaintiffs assailed mutations of gift made in favour of respondents/defendants on the plea of fraud and collusion of revenue officials

Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of petitioners/plaintiffs but Lower Appellate Court reversed the findings and dismissed the suit

Validity

Non-impleadment of revenue officials and revenue authorities hierarchy in suit filed by petitioners/plaintiffs was fatal to their case

Presumption of regularity was attached to official documents and Register of Rights and copy of Daily Diary which were official documents and had presumption of regularity attached with them

Such presumption was not even remotely rebutted and the documents were rightly relied upon by Lower Appellate Court as establishing factum of gift

Rapat Roznamcha (Report of Daily Diary) and Register carrying entries in Record of Rights carried presumption of truth and were rightly relied upon by Lower Appellate Court

High Court declined to interfere in judgment and decree passed by Lower Appellate Court

Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

If officials proceed to violate law, then such action taken cannot fall within the scope of "public duties" or be treated as performance of public duties and bar contained in S. 56(d) of Specific Relief Act, 1877, is not applicable.

Official acts-Presumiition of correctness. There is always a presumption in favour of the correctness of official acts.