Law: Sindh Land Revenue Act, 1967

Section: 164

Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877

Section: 54, 42

  Colonization and Disposal of Government Lands (Sindh) Act, 1912 (V of 1912)------Ss. 10 & 10(5)--Sindh Land Revenue Act, (XXVII of 1967), S. 164--Specific Relief Act, (I of 1877), Ss. 42 & 54--Suit for declaration, permanent and mandatory injunction—Decreed--Appeal Allowed--Grant of land--Cancellation of--Lack of jurisdiction--Report of mukhtarkar--Full owner--Exercise of powers without opportunity of hearing--Violation of law--Challenge to—PWs in his evidence produced report dated 01.11.2002 of Mukhtiarkar Ubauro regarding visit of Suit Property and status of Revenue Record-- Mukhtiarkar Ubauro confirmed existence of Revenue Record in favor of Applicant and his cultivating possession over Suit Property--Colonization and Disposal of Government Lands (Sindh) Act, 1912 provides a mechanism for grant of state land on harap conditions, cancellation of grants in case of any violation on part of any allottee or grantee--Section 10 of Act empowers Government of Sindh to issue statement of conditions for grant or allotment of statement land for agriculture purposes--Land so granted could be cancelled for reasons specified in sub Section 5 of Section 10 of said Act--It was cancelled on ground that Suit Property fell within 20 chains of Village Site, hence was not permissible for grant as envisaged in condition 13 of Statement of Conditions of 1989 issued by Land Utilization Department Government of Sindh for grant of state land--Respondent No. 2 while passing impugned order lost sight of important aspect of case, that grant had already matured and applicant had become full owner of Suit Property--Exercise of such powers without affording opportunity of hearing to an interested party would not only be violation of principles of natural justice but also contrary to provisions of Section 164 of SLRA itself--Impugned order had been passed in violation of mandatory provisions of Section 164 of SLRA, applicant was condemned unheard, impugned order was passed behind his back, which violated his rights as to fair trial thus perverse to law--Revision petition disposed of.JUDGMENT:The instant Revision Application is directed against the Judgment and Decree…