MUHAMMAD JAMEEL Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Ministry of Defence
WAZIR SHAKEEL AHMED, J.--- The brief facts of the case are summarized as under:
2. The appellants filed a civil suit bearing No. 87/99 before the Civil Judge Gilgit in 1999 against the answering respondents for declaration and consequential relief to the effect that they are entitled for compensation amount of Rs. 70,719,25/- on the basis of award No.SO(R-1)/1230-32(98) dated 9-11-98 according to their appropriate share mentioned in the compensation papers along with 8% compound interest from 1995 when they were dispossessed from their owned lands.
3. The above respondents /defendants contested the suit wherein the ownership of the appellants was denied claiming that the land was Khalisa Sarkar further denying, issuances of notices under Land Acquisition Act and the passing of the award was also negated. The learned trial Judge in the light of divergent pleadings framed the following isues:--
The appellant in support of their claim got recorded their statement before the trial court through attorney on 26-5-2008 and also got adduced two P.Ws while respondents/defendants Nos. 1 and 2 got recorded their statements through rep District Attorney Gilgit on 07-1-10. The learned trial court after full trial dismissed the suit of appellant/plaintiffs vide judgment/decree dated 26-5-2010 which has been impugned before us through civil second appeal.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the record of the case with their able assistance which reveals that the trial court initially got framed six issues including that of relief and the suit was fixed for list of witnesses on 03-11-2000 and afterwards on the application dated 03-11-2000 of learned D.A. on behalf of respondents Nos. 3 to 5 framed an additional issue No. 3-A as under:
3-A Whether the plaintiffs are the owners of the land mentioned in award No. SO(R-1)/1230-32/98 dated 9-9-1998 OPP?
5. On very next date i.e. 27-11-2000 the learned trial court after recording ex parte evidence of the appellants/plaintiffs decreed the suit in their favour as prayed for. The above judgment decree dated 27-11-2000 was finally set aside by the same court after a long period of 4 years vide judgment/order dated 18-12-2004. The trial court on the same date fixed the matter for 28-2-2005 for filing of written statement of defendants/respondents Nos. 1 and 2 which was filed on the above fixed date. The rejoinder of the same was filed by the present appellants on 20-4-2005. The learned trial court in the light of the plaint and the written statement filed by the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 got framed fresh 14 issues mentioned referred above altogether neglecting the previously framed issues and the additional issue No.3-A.
6. So it is clear that the present appellants were under obligation to prove the important issue No.3-A along with other issues before the trial court. Although the trial court has omitted to discuss the same however the appellants/plaintiffs tried to prove the title by getting exhibited documents PW-11 to PW-29 before the trial court with a list of documents filed under Order XIII, rules 1, 2, C.P.C. along with their rejoinder but without any application under Order XIII, rules 1, 2, C.P.C. The trial court has although dismissed the suit of the present appellants as not proved however the record shows that the trial court wrongly rather illegally not only allowed the above papers to be filed in the case file and also got exhibited the same as P/11 to P/29 without ensuring any statement of the person from whose custody the documents were procured from.
7. It is interesting to note that the relevant document from which the present appellant tried to prove the missing issue No. 3-A are the 8 copies of jamabandi prepared in the year 2002 which shows that the same were illegally prepared during the pendency of the suit and that also in the circumstances where the Provincial Government and its line revenue department have raised questions pertaining to the title of present appellants in their written statement.
8. In the particular circumstances of the case wherein the answering respondents had not only challenged the propriety of acquisition proceedings even the passing of the award and claimed the land in question as Khalisa Sarkar, it was obligatory for the present appellants to prove their titled first in order to get the benefits of controversial award which they bitterly failed as discussed in detail above.
9. In the light of what has been stated above it is clear that the appellants have miserably failed to establish their title upon the suit land. What to talk of the validity or otherwise of the acquisition proceedings which have been questioned even by the authorities itself quo the respondents Nos.3 to 5. This appeal thus stands dismissed being devoid of any merit whatsoever by maintaining the judgment/decree dated 26-5-2010. File be consigned to record after competition.
ZC/22-GB Appeal dismissed.