Wajib-ul-Arz

Petitioners through the present suit had challenged the entries of Wajib-ul-Arz for the year 1965/1966 by filing a suit for declaration in the year 2000 which made the suit of the plaintiffs/petitioners hopelessly time barred

Petitioners failed to point out any illegality or irregularity in the impugned findings of the Courts below warranting interference of the High Court in limited revisional jurisdiction

Revision, being merit-less ,was dismissed.

Wajib-ul-Arz carries presumption of truth because Wajib-ul-Arz is part of the Record of Rights, and strong, unimpeachable evidence is required to counter and rebut such entries

Grazing rights of the inhabitants of the locality were duly embodied in the Wajib-ul-Arz and no evidence had been provided from either side suggesting any changes in the consistent entries of Wajib-ul-Arz

Petitioners / plaintiffs failed to point out any illegality or irregularity in the impugned findings of the Courts below warranting interference of the High Court in limited revisional jurisdiction

Revision, being merit-less, was dismissed.

Entries in a Wajib-ul-Arz in regard to questions of custom were presumptive evidence of existence of the rules of custom or village usages embodied therein to which a presumption of correctness was attached

Onus was on the party who contended to the contrary in regard to the custom or village usage mentioned in the Wajib-ul-Arz to establish his case.

Wajib-ul-arz was a village administration document describing existing customs regarding rights and liabilities of the village proprietary body and the government

Said document was an outcome of consensus of the village proprietary body and the government reached at the time of settlement of the village.

"Wajib-ul-Arz" speaks about the fact that property lost due to river flow and thereafter when changed its course, on its emergence, the land became the ownership of those persons from whose possession, same was eroded.

Presump-tion of truth is attached to Wajib-ul-Arz and rights of parties are always controlled by its entries prepared at last settlement, which forms part of standing record prepared under S. 39 of West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967.

Instances of such rights and obligations stated.

Whether Wajib-ul-Arz was part of custom.

West Pakistan Local Councils and Municipal Committees (Further Usefulness in Service) Rules, 1963, rr. 3, 5 & 8 read with Municipal Committees (Retirement) Rules, 1966 and General Clauses Act (X of 1897), S. 21-Ake of superannuation-Municipal servant not having completed 55th year of his age when 1963-Rules replaced by 1966-Rules-1963-Rules, in circumstances, held, did not confer a vested right to continue in service till completion of 60th year of age-Right, however, if any, created by 1963-Rules, could be taken away by rule-making authority under S. 21 of General Clauses Act, 1897.

Wajib-ul-arz and riwaj-i-aam Distinction-Presumption of correctness attaches to entries of custom in wajib-ul-arz- Such entries subject to periodical revision in light of changes in outlook and conduct of residents of village concerned-Later entries inconsistent with earlier entries-Custom as recorded in earlier wajib-ul-arz deemed to have ceased.

Wajib-ul-Arz Wajib-ul-arz-Shamilat-Custom-Right of villagers of adjoining village to cut wood and grass for themselves-light in nature of custom-Not a licence.

Entry in, holds good for period of Settlement.

Wajib-ul-Arz Wajib-ul-arz-Entries in-Change from custom in 1904 to Muhammadan Law in 1927-28-Preference for earlier for later entry-Merits of each entry-Personal Law to prevail in case of doubt-Punjab Laws Act (1V of 1872) S. 5-Village Daulatpur, District Rahimyarkhan, Bahawalpur State.

Record of custom of village-Wajib-ul-arz setting out an order of a certain officer is of no evidentiary value. The Wajib-ul-arz, where the question of existence or non-existence of the particular custom in involved, must be taken as of great evidentiary value. In fact a presumption in favour of the correctness of the entries is raised, which of course can be rebutted but by a very strong evidence. The Wajib-ul-arz, however, which is ambiguous in its terms and does not give any particular custom, but records the order passed by a certain officer, has no value at all.