Law: Evidence Act, (1 of 1872)

Section: 45, 79, 114

Evidence Act (I of 1872) Ss. 45, 79 & 114--Presumption as to correctness of official record-Thumb-impression on Register R. L. II allegedly forged and as such could not be taken to signify consent of contest ing petitioner-No application submitted by petitioner to have his thumb-impression taken in Court and sent for comparison with disputed thumb-impression to a Finger Print Expert-Competent authority could raise normal presumption of official acts having been regularly performed and accept thumb-impression on Register R. L. 11 to be genuine or if so minded could have sent admitted thumb-impression of petitioner for comparison-One of two courses, clearly open to competent authority, having been follow ed, relevant authorities, held, cannot be said to have acted with out lawful authority in following course they actually did in pre ference to other. Date of hearing : 8th February, 1981.                                                                                                                                                                                ORDER NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-.The petitioner, a displaced person from Punjab, on migration to Pakistan settled at Mauza Malkan Hanse, Tehsil Pakpattan. District Sahiwal. His case is that he constructed his own house in Khasra No. 231/5-Min and 6/1. Some other houses have also been built in this area. He continued to remain in uninterrupted pos session of the house in dispute and being in possession of it right upto 1st January 1961, he became its transferee, under the provisions of Settlement Scheme No. VII by operation of law. However, respondents 3-4 in collusion with the then Halqa Patwari got the same Khasra No. allotted in their favour. Out of this Khasra No. Sher Ali…