Mrs. SHAHIDA ZOHRA vs PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT OF SINDH through Secretary (LU) Board of Revenue, Sindh and 4 others
This constitutional petition before the Sindh High Court involves a dispute over ownership of land measuring 9600 square feet in Dhabeji, District Thatta. The petitioner claimed title through a registered sale-deed executed in 2004 following prior transfers, supported by Form-II issuances, whereas the Land Utilization Department contended that the land allotment stood cancelled under a Deputy Commissioner's order dated 10-11-1997 due to fraudulent transactions regarding Mourosi plots. The core legal question was whether the petitioner's title under a registered sale-deed and Form-II could prevail over the prior cancellation order without proper ascertainment of facts. The Court disposed of the petition by directing the Member (Land Utilization), Board of Revenue, to examine the matter within three months to ascertain whether the petitioner's case falls within the purview of the 1997 cancellation order and whether the plot was acquired legally and properly. The key principle laid down is that where a registered sale-deed and official revenue forms exist alongside a disputed prior cancellation order, the competent revenue authority must factually determine the legitimacy of the acquisition before rights are adversely affected.
- Whether a registered sale-deed and Form-II entries can override a prior cancellation order without factual inquiry by the competent revenue authority?
- Can the Member, Board of Revenue, be directed to ascertain the legality of a land acquisition where conflicting revenue records and cancellation orders exist?
ORDER
1. ' The only issue involved in this petition is that the petitioner is claiming land measuring 9600 square feet in Dhabeji, Deh Gharo, Taluka Mirpur Sakro, District Thatta, on the ground that said land has been purchased by her from one Abdul Razzaq vide sale agreement, dated 20-2-2004 while Abdul Razzaq had purchased the said land from its previous owner Jalal in the year 2002. He submits that proper sale-deed was also duly registered on 8-3-2004 between the petitioner and Abdul Razzaq and Form-II was also issued from time to time in the names of Abdul Razzaq and previous owner Jalal Khan at the relevant times, which is not reflected in the Government records.
2. According to counsel for the Province, he has the right to hold the land on the ground that the ancestral land while according to learned counsel for Land Utilization Department Mr. Muhammad Ahmed Pirzada, the land was cancelled by order, dated 10-11-1997. Mr. Pirzada, learned counsel for Land Utilization Department, states that the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, dated 10- 11-1997 still stands intact and it has not been challenged as the said order was necessary keeping in view fraudulent transactions, which were going on in the area on the ground of Mourosi Plot/land, he has termed all these Form-II as a fake documents. While Mukhtiarkar, who is present in Court, states that certain land record has been burnt in December, 2007; however, Mr. Pirzada submits that since order of Deputy Commissioner is there, hence at the most petitioners can approach the Member (LU), Board of Revenue, appealing against the said order, which is to be ascertained and considered by him.
3. ' After hearing the arguments of learned counsel, we have observed that registered sale-deed is available while Form-II are also issued from time to time and if the order, dated 10-11-1997 was available with the Mukhtiarkar then how Form-II has been issued and why the petitioner was not intimated on first accession. In the circumstances, when there is a registered sale-deed and Form- II duly stamped by Taluka Mukhtiarkar, we are of the view that the case of the petitioner is to be ascertained by the Member (LU), Board of Revenue, as to whether his case falls within the purview of order, dated 10-11-1997 or not and if the petitioner has acquired the plot legally and properly then he will not be affected by the order of 1997. The findings by the Member (LU) to be given within a period of three months.
4. ' The petition stands disposed of.
Cited by 3 cases
- MUHAMMAD YASEEN and 2 others vs S.S.P., ISLAMABAD and 5 others 2012 PLJ Islamabad 238
- MUHAMMAD YASEEN and 2 others vs SSP ISLAMABAD and 5 others 2013 P Cr. L J 137
- Muhammad Yaseen And 2 Other vs S.S.P., Islamabad And 5 Other 2013 KLR Criminal Cases 159