Pakistan Case LawSubedar ZAR MUHAMMAD Versus WALI MUHAMMAD
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court dismissing a civil revision in a property dispute concerning land allotment and revenue record entries. The core legal question involves the proper appraisal of evidence by the High Court regarding the existence and identity of a specific Khasra number in settlement and revenue records. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the High Court properly appraised the evidence on record before passing the impugned judgment. The key principle laid down relates to the necessity of a correct and thorough appraisal of revenue records, Jamabandis, and oral testimony of revenue officials when determining discrepancies in property identification.
- Whether the High Court has properly appraised the evidence on record before passing the impugned judgment regarding the existence of a disputed Khasra number?
ORDER
FAZAL ILAHI KHAN, J.---Leave to appeal is prayed for against the judgment of the learned Peshawar High Court, Peshawar dated 17-3-1993 in Civil Revision No, 334 of 1987.
Facts of the case giving rise to the present petition briefly stated are that in the year 1958-59 land bearing Khasra No, 4859 measuring 37 Kanals 18 Marlas situated in Pir Pai was spilt up in the subsequent consolidation/partition proceedings into the following parts:
Khasra No, 3953. Khasra No, 3953/1 Khasra No, 3953/2 Khasra No, 3954 Khasra No, 3954/1 Khasra No, 3954/2
On 1-9-1984 the petitioner brought the present suit against the respondent for declaration that he was owner of land measuring 3 Kanals bearing Khasra No, 3954/2 and Revenue Record in which the defendant is shown in possession of it as 'Bela lagan' is wrong and ineffective on his rights.
Prayer for injunction and in the alternative for possession was also made.
Respondent/defendant in his written statement resisted the plaintiff's suit on various pleas and stated that Khasra No, 3954/2 does not exist. It was further stated that though Khasra No, 3954/4 exists in the Shajra Kishtwar but it finds no place in the settlement record and the subsequent Jamabandis.
The petitioner/plaintiffs suit was dismissed by the learned trial Judge on the ground that Khasra No, 3954/2 does not exist on the spot and on such findings the petitioner's appeal and revision both were dismissed by the learned District Judge and the learned High Court respectively.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has been heard and the available record perused. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the settlement/partition proceedings Khasra No, 3954/2 measuring 3 Kanals was allotted to the petitioner/plaintiff in the year 1964/65 per Jamabandi, copy of which is Exh.PW-1/9, wherein he is recorded as its sole owner. This entry is repeated in the subsequent Jamabandis of the year 1966-67, 1970-71, 1978-79 and 1982-83. The owner is recorded to be in possession in the aforementioned record, excepting that in the Jamabandi for the year 1982-83 wherein respondent/defendant is for the first time shown in the column of possession as "Ghair Dakheelkar" and in the column of lagan' "Bela Ada Legan". It was further contended that Nadir Khan Patwari Halqa (P.W.1) has clearly stated that Khasra No, 3954/2 is missing from the field map (Shajra - Latha) prepared by the Patwari and there is shown Khasra No, 3954/4. Area of both these Khasra numbers is 3 Kanals. He has further stated that Khasra No, 3954/4 is nowhere mentioned in the settlement record and the subsequent Jamabandis. It was argued that Khasra No, 3954/2 has been erroneously shown as Khasra No, 3954/4. Leave is granted to consider the question; whether the learned High Court has properly appraised the evidence on record before passing the impugned judgment.
Judges on this bench
- Fazal Ilahi Khan582 judgments
- Wali Muhammad Khan585 judgments