GHULAM QADIR and another vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a criminal proceeding where the applicants sought confirmation of pre-arrest bail in F.I.R. No. 298 of 2011 registered at Police Station A-Section Khairpur, initiated upon a complaint by the Reader of the Sessions Judge Khairpur alleging that the surety documents submitted by applicant No. 1 for bail were found by the Mukhtiarkar not to be mutated in his name. The core legal question concerns whether submission of surety property belonging to the applicant's deceased father, where mutation of the khata had not yet been formally recorded due to administrative omission by revenue authorities, constitutes a fraudulent submission of false surety. The Sindh High Court held that upon the death of the father, the applicant became a co-owner by operation of law, and the failure to update the revenue records was an administrative default of the revenue authorities rather than a malafide act of the applicant. Consequently, the court confirmed the bail granted to the applicants, establishing the principle that beneficial ownership arising from inheritance suffices for surety purposes where delay in formal mutation is attributable to the revenue administration.
- Whether bail can be confirmed when surety property ownership is established through inheritance despite a delay in formal revenue mutation?
- Does the failure of revenue authorities to record a change of khata after a property owner's death invalidate a surety furnished by a legal heir?
ORDER
1. ' SHAHID ANWAR BAJWA, J.--F.I.R. No.298 of 2011 was recorded at Police Station A-Section Khairpur. It was lodged at a complaint by Reader of Sessions Judge Khairpur. It was stated in the F.I.R. That bail was granted to present applicant No.2 and for the purpose of bail present applicant No.1 submitted documents of surety which documents, were sent to the Mukhtiarkar, who reported that property in question was not in name of the applicant No.l.
2. ' Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the land in, question belonged to father of applicant No.1 and after death of his father he applied for change of Khata but the concerned Tapedar etc. Though assured him that the Khata had been changed did not actually change the khata. He submits that under the law of inheritance the applicant No.1 became co-owner of the land moment his father breathed his last and recording of change of khata was an administrative act, which was responsibility of Revenue Authoritie, moment information regarding death of father of applicant No.1 was communicated to it.
3. ' Learned D.P.-G. Concedes that father of applicant No.1 has expired and therefore, applicant No.1 by operation of law had become owner of that property and non-recording him in the khata is a fault A which can be put at the door of Revenue Authorities rather than blaming the present applicant No.
1. Therefore, he stated that he had no objection if the bail application is allowed.
4. ' Consequently, this application is allowed and the bail already granted to the applicants vide order dated 3-1-2012 is confirmed on the same terms and conditions.
Cited by 1 case
- Mian Waqar Akhtar Paganwala vs The State and another 2021 P Cr. L J 1200