MUHAMMAD YAQOOB and others vs MUHAMMAD MUNSHI and others
This civil appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arises from a dispute over land allotment measuring 88 Kanals and 2 Marlas situated in District Sheikhupura. The respondents instituted a suit for declaration and permanent injunction, claiming to be allottees under the one Killa per Person scheme and alleging that the appellants' allotment and sale were void ab initio. The trial court dismissed the suit, and the appellate court affirmed the dismissal. However, the Lahore High Court allowed the respondents' civil revision and partly decreed the suit. Upon appeal, the core legal question was whether the High Court was justified in setting aside concurrent findings of fact and partly decreeing the suit based on alleged fake allotment. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in ignoring material evidence regarding the valid transfer, entitlement certificate, allotment chit, registered sale-deed, and revenue records establishing the appellants' proprietary rights as Mangla Dam affectees, and that the impugned judgment suffered from misreading and non-reading of evidence. The appeal was allowed and the High Court's judgment was set aside.
- Whether the High Court can interfere with concurrent findings of fact based on a misreading and non-reading of material evidence?
- Does an entitlement certificate and registered sale-deed confer valid proprietary rights to a Mangla Dam affectee?
- Whether a suit for declaration and permanent injunction can be decreed in the absence of established entitlement of the plaintiffs?
' FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.--- The respondents Nos.1 to 3 instituted a suit for declaration with permanent injunction in that they were the allottees of the suit-land measuring 88 Kanals and 2 Marlas situate at Chak No,14-RB, Tehsil Safdarabad, District Sheikhupura, under the scheme known as one Killa per Person and that the allotment and sale of the same in favour of the appellants or their father late Misri was void ab initio and that the appellants were required to be restrained from interfering with its possession. Their suit was dismissed by the Civil Judge, Sheikhupura, vide judgment, dated 22-3-2005 which was affirmed by the Additional District Judge, Sheikhupura, vide judgment, dated 27-6-2005. Therefore, they filed Civil Revision No,1972 of 2005, which was allowed by a learned single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, vide impugned judgment, dated 24-10- 2005 and the suit was partly decreed in their favour to the extent of possession of the suit-land.
2. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the entitlement certificate of the allotment of land had been duly issued by the Commissioner, Mangla Dam Affairs, Mirpur (AJ&K) in favour of late Misri predecessor-in-interest of the appellants who was allotted the suit-land, vide allotment Chit No,26, dated 8-3-1976. After deposit of the Government dues Mutation No,1535 was attested on the basis of the sale-deed which was got registered by the Collector on 15-1-2002. Entries of the conferment of proprietary rights were also reflected in the Revenue Record of rights.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents argued that the allotment and the grant of proprietary rights of the suit-land in favour of the appellants by the Collector were fake and fraudulent and that they were not entitled to the same. Our attention was drawn to letter, dated 8- 3-1976, issued by the Commissioner, Mangla Dam Affairs, Mirpur (AJ&K) to the Deputy Commissioner, Sheikhupura in which it was stated that the allotment of the land in Chak No,25-UC Tehsil Ferozewala, District Sheikhupura, was cancelled from the name of earlier allottee Imam Din and that the entitlement certificate in favour of late Misri, predecessor-in-interest of the appellants had been issued and enclosed who was entitled to allotment of alternate land in colony area of Punjab.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the available record. We find that on the basis of the entitlement certificate and Allotment Chit No,26 the Collector, Sheikhupura had got registered sale-deed, dated 15-1-2002 in favour of the appellants followed by Mutation No,1535. The Register Haqdaran Zamin also showed that the suit-land stood transferred in the name of the appellants. None of the Courts had found the entitlement of the contesting respondents to the suit-land as claimed by them. Therefore, the High Court was not justified in partly decreeing the suit of the respondents as regards their possession over the same.
The High Court could not ignore the evidence which clearly indicated the transfer/sale of the suit- land and grant of its proprietary rights on the appellants being affectees of Mangla dam. The impugned judgment of the High Court suffers from misreading and non-reading of material evidence on record and the same is not sustainable at law.
5. For the foregoing reasons, this appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment, dated 24-10-2005 of the High Court is set aside. Consequently, the suit of the respondents shall stand dismissed throughout. No order as to costs.