| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2023 SLG 909 2023 SLD 909 2023 MLD 561 |
Sindh High Court, Sukkur Bench
Civil Revision Application No. S-74 of 2020, decided on 14th March, 2022. Date of hearing: 14th March, 2022.
Before Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam, J
Raj Kumar D. Rajput for Applicant. Abdul Rehman Siddique for
Respondent No. 2. Noor Hassan Malik, Assistant Advocate General along with Ayaz Ahmed Tapadar, Imtiaz Ali Buriro Tapadar and Amir Ali concerned/litigation Mukhtiarkar Office, Rohri.
Civil Revision Application No. S-74 of 2020, decided on 14th March, 2022. Date of hearing: 14th March, 2022.
Before Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam, J
Raj Kumar D. Rajput for Applicant. Abdul Rehman Siddique for
Respondent No. 2. Noor Hassan Malik, Assistant Advocate General along with Ayaz Ahmed Tapadar, Imtiaz Ali Buriro Tapadar and Amir Ali concerned/litigation Mukhtiarkar Office, Rohri.
AMEER AHMED-----Applicant
VERSUS
PROVINCE OF SINDH through Secretary Revenue Sindh, Secretariat Karachi and 5 others-----Respondents
Law: Sindh Land Revenue Act, 1967
Section: 53
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: 11
Sindh Land Revenue Act (XVIII of 1967)--- ----S. 53---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VII, R. 11---Entry in revenue record---Plea of fraud---Plaint challenging entry rejected by Trial Court---Validity---Applicant purchased the land by way of registered sale deed regarding which the entry was kept---Huge portion of land was transferred in the name of respondent merely on oral statement---According to official version, record of such oral statement was untraceable---In the plaint it was specifically pleaded that when applicant acquired knowledge about the alleged fraudulent entry, he took steps to safeguard his interest---If the entire revenue remedy was not exhausted, then considering S. 53 of the Sindh land Revenue Act, 1967, the title dispute was to be adjudicated upon by the Civil Courts---Plaint of applicant could not have been rejected in such a cursory and mechanical manner as had been done by the Trial Court as well as Appellate Court---Courts had to see and evaluate right and interest of a person/litigant in view of documents produced by him/her---Applicant was deriving its title from a registered sale deed which had been given recognition by the Revenue Official/respondent by keeping a mutation entry---Where prima facie there was a strong case of entitlement in favour of a person, he should not be non-suited, merely on ground that one of the final remedies was not exhausted under the revenue hierarchy, which remedy otherwise appeared to have become illusory in nature---In case in hand, there was ex facie triable issues involved which could only be decided after leading evidence---Civil revision was allowed and case was remanded to Trial Court, in circumstances. Abad Muhammad through his Legal Heirs and another v. Mst. Sakina and another PLD 1987 Revenue 25; Mazloom Hussain v. Abid Hussain and 4 others PLD 2008 SC 571; Muhammad Ishaq v. Member (R), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and 18 others 1994 MLD 2254 and Jan Muhammad and another v. Abdul Aziz PLD 1986 Rev. 150 distinguished. JUDGMENT MUHAMMAD FAISAL KAMAL ALAM, J.---This revision application is filed impugning the two orders of Appellate and Trial Court, rejecting the plaint vide order dated…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492