Ch. Abdul Saleem VS Mst. Aziz Khatoon

Stereo. H C J D A 38

JUDGMENT SHEET

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

JUDGMENT

R.S.A No.69/2006

Ch. Muhammad Abdul Saleem VS. Mst. Aziza Khatoon (deceased) (deceased) represented by represented by legal heirs, etc. legal heirs

Date of hearing 13.09.24, 14.09.2024 and 20.09.2024. Appellant by Mr. Muhammad Atif Amin, Ch. Zahid Saleem, Mr. Rizwan Sarwar and Mr. Irfan Dawood, Advocates. Respondents No.1(i) Khawaja Haris Ahmad, Barrister Muhammad Hamza to 1(ix) by Afzal and Mr. Muhammad Hasham Waqar Butt, Advocates.

Respondent No.2 by Ch. Tanveer Akhtar, Addl. Advocate General. Dr. Muhammad Irtaza Awan

Ch. Muhammad Iqbal, J:- Through this Regular Second Appeal, the appellant has challenged the vires of judgment & decree dated 08.05.2006 passed by the learned District Judge, Lahore who accepted the appeal of the respondents No.1 (i to ix), set aside the judgment & decree dated 27.03.1996 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Lahore and decreed respondents’ suit for possession of Plot No.90-F, Model Town, Lahore.

2.Brief facts of the appeal are that Mst. Aziza Khatoon, predecessor-in-interest of respondents No.1(i to ix) filed a suit for possession of Plot No.90-F, Model Town, Lahore, demolition of unauthorized construction and recovery of Rs.3,41,000/- as damages/compensation for use and occupation of the plot against Ch. Muhammad Abdul Saleem/predecessor-in-interest of the

appellants/defendants with the contention that she purchased the suit plot/property from the Settlement Department/defendant No.2 through an open auction in the year 1960 against consideration of Rs.20,700/-. After confirmation of auction, PTO No.564637 was issued in her favour. The price of the plot was paid on 20.04.1961 and thereafter PTD was issued in her favour on 20.07.1961; That she filed an application to the Model Town Cooperative Housing Society for her enrollment as its member which was granted on 14.07.1963 and in this regard membership certificate was issued but due to some family circumstances, she could not raise construction over the said plot; That on 11.04.1983, the wife of Ch. Muhammad Abdul Saleem/defendant No.1 attempted to encroach upon the said plot but she could not succeed. Defendant No.1 got lodged FIR against the some of the plaintiffs but after investigation the said FIR was found false. The husband of the plaintiff also got registered a criminal case against defendant for forcibly / illegally occupying the possession of the suit plot and during the pendency of the investigation of the criminal case, defendant No.1 produced an alleged Transfer Order (TO) dated 28.12.1976 issued by the then Deputy Settlement Commissioner (Muhammad Fayyaz Qureshi) in favour of Mst. Razia Umar, the mother of Ch. Muhammad Abdul Saleem/defendant No.1. The said alleged allotment order is forged, fabricated, ante-dated, and got prepared by defendant No.1 being in league with the Deputy Settlement Commissioner who was also arrested in the above said criminal case; that the mother of defendant never remained in possession of the said plot during her lifetime till her death in the year 1978.

Ch. M. Abdul Saleem, Predecessor-in-interest of the appellants/defendants filed contesting written statement contending therein that he is owner in possession of the said plot; the plaintiff is not lawful owner and the suit is not

maintainable; that the alleged PTO & PTD in favour of the respondent No.1/ plaintiff are forged and fabricated documents as per finding of the inquiry report dated 29.04.1984 and the suit is liable to be dismissed. The trial court initially framed issues on 22.09.1989 but later on, in the said suit, the Settlement Department was impleaded as defendant No.2 who also filed contesting written statement on legal as well as factual grounds. As per divergent pleadings of the trial Court framed fresh issues on 29.05.1993 and after recording the evidence of both the parties, the learned Civil Judge, Lahore, (Mr. Muhammad Akram Rana) dismissed the suit of the respondents vide judgment & decree dated 27.03.1996. Respondent No.1/plaintiff challenged the said judgment & decree through Regular First Appeal [No.212/1996] before this Court but due to enhancement of pecuniary jurisdiction of the lower appellate Court, the said appeal was transmitted to the learned District Judge, Lahore who after setting aside the impugned judgment & decree dated 27.03.1996, remanded the case to the trial court vide order dated 27.04.2005. The appellants challenged the said order through an appeal [FAO No.157/2005] before this Court and with the concurrence of both the parties, the said appeal was accepted, the impugned judgment dated 24.06.2005 was set aside and the matter was remanded to the appellate court to decide the appeal afresh in accordance with law. In post-remand proceedings, the learned District Judge, Lahore accepted the appeal of the respondent No.1 vide judgment & decree dated 08.05.2006, set aside the judgment & decree dated 27.03.1996 of the trial Court and decreed the suit for possession of the respondents/ plaintiff. Hence, this Regular Second Appeal.

3.Arguments heard. Record perused.

4.Admittedly, the appellants did not challenge the Auction Proceedings of the suit plot as well as instrument of PTO/PTD in favour of the respondent No.1 / plaintiff till to-date before any competent forum. Even the Settlement Department / defendant No.2 in its written statement did not assert that the PTD & PTO in favour of the respondent No.1/plaintiff are forged documents rather took a plea that the record of the case is not available. The respondent No.1/plaintiff in paragraph No.7 (a) of the plaint stated that the appellant/defendant filed application on 29.05.1983 to the Settlement Commissioner, Lahore with the plea that PTO/ PTD of the suit plot in favour of respondent/plaintiff may be as declared as forged fabricated and illegal. The Settlement Commissioner rejected the said application being not based on true facts vide order dated 12.06.1983. In paragraph No.7(b) of the plaint, the plaintiff contended that on 04.07.1984 Mst. Mumtaz Begum w/o Ch. Muhammad Abdul Saleem filed an application for obtaining certified copy of the documents relating to the plot in question and she was informed by the Settlement Commissioner (Urban), Lahore vide order dated 21.08.1984 that “all documents relating to alleged transfer order in favour of Razia Umar regarding property No.90-F Model Town, Lahore have been found to be anti-dated and fabrication. Consequently, it is regretted, copies of these documents cannot be issued to you.” The Settlement Department did not deny these facts while filing its written statement whereas the appellant/defendant did not answer ground No.7(a), however while answering ground 7 (b), he did not specifically denied the letter dated 21.08.1984 rather placed on record the copy of an inquiry report dated

5.Muhammad Saleh Clerk Model Town Society appeared as PW1 who stated that he has brought the record of 90/F Model Town Society, wherein the membership of Mst. Aziza Khatoon is

R.S.A No.69/2006 5

available; that Exh.P.1 is copy of membership certificate which is correct as per their record. During cross examination, he deposed that office copy of Exh.P.1 is available in their office; that membership certificate was issued on the basis of PTO No.564637 dated 04.10.1960. Muhammad Aslam, Patwari Settlement Department appeared as P.W.2. Dr. Junaid Habib Khan, one of the respondents/plaintiffs (P.W.3) deposed that: "زعزیہ اخوتن وتمہیف ریمی وادلہ ںیھت ہگج دتموعہی 90-Fامڈل اٹؤن ربہبق ھچ انکل ےہ ہی ہگج ریمی وادلہ ےن 1960ںیم ہمکحم سیٹلمنٹ ےس ذبرہعی Open Auctionاحلص ایک اھت۔ الپٹ دتموعہی غلبم (20700/-سیب زہار است وس) روےپ ںیم الینم وہیئ یھت۔ وبتق الینیم ہی اخیل الپٹ اھت۔۔۔ الینیم یک رمق Compensation Bookےک ذرےعی ادا یک یئگ یھت ہمکحم ےن 1960ںیمریمی وادلہےکقحںیم P.T.O.اجریایک۔اور 1963ںیم لقتسم P.T.D.اجری وہ ایگ۔ ریمی وادلہ ےن امڈل اٹؤن وساسیٹئ وک ربمم پش ےک ےیل دروخاتس دی وج ہک وظنمر وہ رک 1963ںیم ریمی وادلہ وک ربمم پش لم ےئگ۔ اور Share Certificateیھب اجری وہایگ۔ ہی ل لی رہبق ارپلی 1983کت اکتش وہات راہ۔ 1983ںیم دبعا س م ،اےکن اھبیئ دمحم اصدق اور میلس یک ویبی امسمۃ اتممز مگیب ےن الپٹ دتموعہی رپ زربدیتس ہضبق رک ایل۔ اس اناجزئہضبق ےک الخف ریمے وادل اصبح ےن ان ےک الخف FIRدرج رکوایئ یھت۔ ریمے وادل اصبح وفت وہ ےکچ ںیہ۔ FIRرپاکروایئدوعی ذہایکوہجےسریکوہیئےہ۔دماعہیلعربمن 1ےن امہرے الخف FIRاہحلس الےن اور ڈیتی یک درج رکوایئ یھت۔ وج ہک دعاتل ںیم اجےن ےس لبق یہ اخرج وہیئگ یھت۔ ل لی دبعا س م وریغہ اک 1983ےس لبق ہگج دتموعہی رپ ہضبق ہن اھت وبتق دارئی FIRمہ ےن ہمکحم سیٹلمنٹ ےس دصمہق وقنل احلص یک ںیھت رگم دعب ںیم ہمکحم واولں ےن ہہک دای ہک افلیئ مگ وہیئگ ےہ۔دعاتلںیم بلایکایگوتامہری P.T.D.ےکادنراجواالہحفصیہراکیرڈںیم ےساٹھپوہااھت ہشقن رظنی الپٹ دتموعہی Ex.P2اطمبقب ومعق درتس ےہ اور ریمی وادلہ وتمہیف اک دیطختس auction bid proformaیکدصمہقلقن(Ex.P3اتعبذعر)دصمہقلقن Ex.P4 PTO مکح ومرہخ 17/05/63ہمکحم سیٹلمنٹ یک دصمہق لقن ،Ex.P5دصمہق لقن روپرٹ ومرہخ ،Ex.P6 02.05.63دصمہق لقن دروخاتس دماعہیلع Ex.P7مکح ومرہخ 14/06/83یک دصمہق لقن ،Ex.P8الص ( ExP9 P.T.D.اتعب ذعر) شیپ رکات وہں ۔(وکلسن دماع ہیلع ربمن Ex.P9 2رپ ارتعاض رکےت ںیہ ہک الص ریغب راکیرڈ ےک شیپ ہن وہ یتکس ےہ ویکہکن دصمہق لقن ہن ےہ الص راکیرڈ میلست دشہ وطر رپ مگ وہ ایگ ےہ۔ ذہلا ارتعاض وکلسن دماع اعہیل ربمن 2رتسمد

ایکاجاتاورالص P.T.D.وکاشلماہشدتایکاجاتےہ۔)"

During cross examination, he deposed that:

" P.T.D.احلص رکےن یک امتم اکروایئ ریمی وادلہ ےن یک یھت۔۔۔ےھجم ریمی وادلہ ےن امتم ل لی وااعقت 1983ںیم دبعا س م وریغہ ےک ریغ اقونین ہضبق رکےن رپ اتبےئ ےھت اس وتق ںیم گنک

R.S.A No.69/2006 6

اڈیورڈ ڈیملکی اکجل ںیم افلنئ ارئیاک وٹسڈٹن اھت۔۔۔ اہتبل سج رات دماع ہیلع ربمن 1اور اس ےک اسویھتں ےنہضبق ایک ںیم اس روزیھب الپٹ رپ ایگاھت۔۔۔ میلسوریغہ ےن الپٹ دتموعہی رپ اسےنم وایلدویارانبرکہضبقرکایلاھتویکہکنابیقونیتںرطفرھگےنبوہےئےھت۔میلسوریغہےندویاراکی یہ دن ںیم انبیئ یھت۔ بج مہ ومعق رپ ےئگ وت اوہنں ےن دویار اور ٹیگ بصن رک ایل اھت۔۔۔ںیم دارئی دوعی ےک دعب ےس اینپ وادلہ ےک اسھت اباقدعیگ ےس آات راہ وہں۔۔۔ درتس ےہ ہک ریمےوادلاصبحاڈیوٹیکےھتاہتبلرپسٹکیہنرکےتےھتونرٹی کلبپےھت۔۔۔FIRریمے وادل اصبح ےن درج رکوایئ یھت درتس ےہ ہک دروخاتس زری آرڈر 7رول 14ض د یک دروخاتس اور FIRںیم مہ ےن PTOاور P.T.D.الص اےنپ اپس وموجد وہےن اک ذرک ایک اھت۔۔۔الص P.T.O.اور P.T.Dمگیہہنوہےئںیہاسےیلدشمگیگیکروپرٹدرجہنرکوایئ ےہ۔۔۔ مہےن ہمکحمسیٹلمنٹ ےکوگاہ ےک ایبنےکدعبدودروخاتساہےئ ہمکحم ںیمدیںیھتہک ہقلعتم ااکلہروں ےک الخف اکروایئ یک اجےئ مہ بج یھب ہمکحم ںیم اجےت ںیہ وہ ےتہک ںیہ ہک اکروایئ وہ ریہ ےہ ںیم ان دروخاتس اہےئ یک وقنل شیپ رکاتکس وہں۔۔۔ Share Certificate ریمے اپس وموجد ےہ اور ںیم شیپ رکات وہں۔۔۔ رسٹنفٹکنٹ Ex.P10شیپ رکات وہں۔۔۔ درتسےہہک Ex.P3رپدطختسEx.P3/Aریمیوادلہےکںیہ۔۔۔"

Zahoorullah, Inspector Crime Branch (P.W.5) deposed that: "ںیم 1983ںیم اھتہن امڈل اٹؤن انیعتت اھت۔ دقمہم ربمن 71/83یک شیتفت ںیم ےن یک یھت بیبحاہللاخناڈیوٹیکیکدروخاتسرپ FIRدرجوہیئیھت۔سجیکدرتس لقن Ex.P25 (زریارتعاض)ےہ لقن روپرٹ ( Ex.P26 173زری ارتعاض) ےہںیم ےن ومعق رپ اجرک ہشقن ومعقایترایکاھتلقن ExP.27ریمیایتررکدہاوردیطختسےہ۔ںیمےندروخاتسڈیٹپسیٹلمنٹ رنشمک وک دی یھت سج یک لقن )( Ex.P27 (P28زری ارتعاض) ےہ اوہنں ےن وجاب ایس دروخاتس رپ ھکل دای ےہ۔ ان یک رطف ےس اجری رکدہ اکتاات Ex.28/Auction Listاور Ex.P29/TOاورادایگیئافرم Ex.P30ےہ۔"

During cross examination, he deposed that:

"اید ہن ےہ ہک ڈیٹپ سیٹلمنٹ رنشمک الوہر ایفض رقیشی ےس راہطب ایک اھت۔ درتس ےہ ہک روپرٹ Ex.P28ےک دطختس اور انم فلتخم ایسیہ و ملق ےس ںیہ۔ روپرٹ یک دصتقی ےک ےیل اکتااتہمکحماحبایلتےسہضبقںیمہنےیلےھت۔۔"

6.Conversely, Fiaz Qureshi (D.W.2), retired Deputy Settlement Commissioner, deposed that:

" ںیم 1976ںیم ارپلی ےک ےنیہم ےس ےل رک امرچ 1977کت وطبر ڈیٹپ سیٹلمنٹ رنشمک الپسٹ الوہر ںیم انیعتت راہ۔۔۔ںیم ےن اینپ انیعتیت ےک دوران الپٹ دتموعہی 90Fوک رٹارفسن ایک اھت۔ ںیم ےن الپٹ دتموعہی امسمۃ رہیض رمع وک ربوےئ مکح ومرہخ 28/12/76رٹارفسن ایک اھت۔ دصمہق لقن Ex.D2ریمے مکح یک یہ لقن ےہ۔ ںیم ےن ہی الپٹ (RSS VIII) revise

R.S.A No.69/2006 7

settlement schemeےکتحتلقتنمایکاھت۔ایسمیکس )(RSS VIIIےک تحت دروخاتس ددنہہےکےیلرضوریاھتہکاساکہضبقومعقرپوہاورریمعتاتیکوہیئوہں۔"

During cross examination, he deposed that:

" بج الپٹ دتموعہی لقتنم ایک وت ںیم وطبر ااکؤٹن آرسیف انیعتت اھت اور وطبر ڈیٹپ سیٹلمنٹ رنشمک )(actرکراہ اھت۔لقتسموطر رپ ڈیٹپسیٹلمنٹرنشمکہن اھت۔۔۔الپٹ دتموعہیاکرہبق رقتابی ھچانکل اھت۔ںیمےنہضبقیکیلستےکےئیلاسہلئاکرانشاکرڈاورربممپشرسٹیکفیٹازامڈلاٹؤنوساسیٹئ داھکی اھت۔۔۔ ںیم ےن اےنپ مکح ںیم رانش اکرڈ ای ربمم پش رسٹیکفیٹ اک ذرک ہن ایک اھت۔ ںیم ےن یلجب اپین ،وسیئ سیگ ای یلیٹ وفن اک وکیئ لب ہن داھکی اھت۔۔۔ ںیم ےن وظنمر دشہ ہشقن ہن داھکی اھت۔۔۔ درتس ےہ ہک 1983ںیم زعزیہ اخوتن ےک اخودن ےن ریمے اور دماع ہیلع ےک الخف وفدجاری رپہچدرجرکواایاھت۔درتسےہہکںیماسرپےچںیمرگاتفریھبوہااھتاورریمیدعبازرگاتفری امضتن وہیئ یھت۔ اس وفدجاری رپےچ ےک العوہ ریمے الخف اچر ای اپچن دورسے وفدجاری رپےچ یھب درج وہےئ ےھت۔ درتس ےہ ہک الپٹ 80-Eامڈل اٹؤن دمحم ادرسی وک لقتنم ایک اھت سج اک رپہچ درجوہا۔ طلغ ےہ ہک اس الپٹ رپ رگزل اکجل اقمئ اھت۔ الپٹ ربمن 127-Dدبعارکلمی رجگ اور ہبیط مگیب وک ںیم ےن لقتنم ایک اور اس ےک الخف وفدجاری رپہچ درج وہا ۔ ملع ہن ےہ ہک دمحم الضفوکاساک P.T.D.اجریوہااھتایںیہن۔ازوخداہکہکوکیئراکیرڈوموجدہناھت۔درتسےہہک الپٹ ربمن 65-Dدمحم ریشب وک لقتنم ایک اھت۔ درتس ےہ ہک الپٹ ربمن 24498دنسر داس روڈ امجل دنی وک لقتنم ایک اور ان دوونں رپ وفدجاری دقمےم درج وہےئ۔ الپٹ ربمن 2483لپمیٹ روڈ دبعارلنمحکلموکلقتنمایکاھت۔طلغےہہکہیالپٹوخردیشمگیباوراتہمبیبیب ےنالینمںیمرخدیا اھت۔اسےکالعوہدرگیوکیئدقمہمہندرجوہا۔۔۔"

)Khidmat Ali, Superintendent Settlement Department (D.W.3 deposed that:

"ربفلح ایبن ایک ہک ںیم راکیرڈ روم اک ااچنرج وہں۔ ںیم سیٹلمنٹ ےک ہمکحم ےک راکیرڈ روم اک ااچنرجوہں۔ںیمارپلیووجن 1983اکررٹسجوقنالترمہاہےلرکآایوہں۔ریسلیربمن368 ومرہخ 10-04-83وک اثنر ادمح ودل رمزا ارکم گیب ےن رپارپیٹ ربمن )(SE-IV-38-S-II SE-IV-38-S-IIےکابرے ںیم دروخاتس اکادنراجےہ۔ہی اجدیئاد رمگٹنمی اپرکالوہر ںیم واعق ےہ اس دروخاتس ےس اچر وقنالت ومرہخ 12-4-83وک اجری وہیئ ںیہ۔ ریسلی ربمن 736ومرہخ 24-7-83وکدیسرایضریم ودلدیسرایض نیسحےنرپارپیٹربمنS-57-R-20 واعقلپمیٹروڈالوہرےکابرےںیم دروخاتس دی۔اسادنراجرپدعتادرپوقنل اجریدشہدرج ہنےہ۔اندوونںریسلیربمنوںرپ 90Fامڈلاٹؤنیکوقنالتاجریہنوہیئںیہ۔" Learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff raised objection that aforesaid witness (D.W.3) is not a summoned witness and no

R.S.A No.69/2006 8

permission was sought from the trial Court, but the said objection was turned down. During cross examination, D.W.3 deposed that: " ررٹسجشیپرکدہںیموکیئادنراجریما یملقودیطختسہنےہ۔۔درتسےہہکاس ررٹسجںیم یسک آرسیف ےک دطختس ای رہم وموجد ہن ےہ سج ےس ہتپ ےلچ ہک ہی ررٹسج وقنالت ےک ےیل اامعتسل وہ راہ ےہ۔درتسےہ ہکررٹسج ذہاہمکحم اک اشعئدشہ ) (Printedہنےہہکلب اسدہ ررٹسجےہوج ہکاعم ابزار ےس دایتسب ےہ ۔ درتس ےہ ہک ررٹسج دمہنی اکیپ اہؤس اک اشعئ دشہ ےہ وج ہک اردو ابزار الوہر اکےہ۔ ملع ہنےہہک 1983ںیم وکنصخش لقنرباچنںیم المزماھت۔۔۔ملع ہنےہ ہکوقنل رباچن ںیم رہ رسلک ےک دحیلعہ دحیلعہ ررٹسج ںیہ ای ںیہن۔۔۔ درتس ےہ ہک ررٹسج ےک رصف ابرہ وقنل ررٹسج اک ادنراج ےہ ادن ر اہجں رپ ادنرااجت ںیہ واہں رپ وقنل یک ابتب ہن اھکل ےہ۔ درتس ےہ ہک ررٹسج رپ احفصت ےک ربمن درج ہن ںیہ۔ درتس ےہ ہک ررٹسج ذہا looseاحتل ںیم ےہ۔۔۔درتسےہہکروقمےکادنراجرپںیہکسیفاکظفلدرجہنےہ۔۔۔۔"

Muhammad Aslam (D.W.4), Deputy Superintendent, Litigation Cell, Board of Revenue deposed that:

ل لی " ںیم سیٹلمنٹ ےک S&Rےک casesوک dealرکات وہں۔ دبعا س م یک دروخاتس ومرہخ 6-2-91رپ ومرہخ 26-8-91وک مکح اصدر وہا اھت ہک افلئ re-constructیک اجوے۔ ومرہخ 24-12-92وک وچدہری اطبل نیسح ربمم وبرڈ آف رویوین ےن verification committeeیک روپرٹ یک وتعیس یک۔ اس مکح ےک اطمقب ااچنرج لگیل لیس ےن ومرہخ 14-01-93وک دبعاابلطس لیہس وک افلیئ re-constructرکےن اک مکح اصدر ایک۔ امہرے راکیرڈ ںیم زعزیہ اخوتن ،اس ےک اخودن ای ےٹیب یک رطف ےس افلئ re-constructرکےن یک وکیئ دروخاتس افلیئ رپ وموجد ہن ےہ ۔ اہتبل زعزیہ اخوتن یک اکی دروخاتس ومرہخ 27-9-93 وموجدےہ سج ںیم litigation cellلیسیکاکروایئےکابرےںیم اکشتئیک ےہ۔ اس نمض ںیم اکی درگی دروخاتس ومرہخ 02/1/93وک دی وج ہک ومرہخ 14/12/94وک درتف ںیم وموصل وہےن رپ litigation cellےن راکیرڈ روم ےس راکیرڈ بل ایک ایگ سج رپ راکیرڈ دایتسبہنوہارگمدنچروپرںیٹدایتسبوہںیئ۔نجںیمدرجاھتہکالصراکیرڈرپارپیٹربمن90F امڈلاٹؤناکراکیرڈالتشےکابووجد دایتسبہنوہراہےہدورانالتشmovementررٹسجکیچ ایکایگسجرپرہیضرمعاکادنراجاپایاجاتےہہیررٹسجرٹنس(5اپچن)اکاھت۔" During cross examination, he deposed that:

" ہیدرتسےہہک litigation cellےکالعوہںیمےنہمکحمسیٹلمنٹیکیسکرباچنںیماکمہنایک ےہ۔۔۔ ریپا ربمن 58ات 64یک وقنل (Ex.P11نیت احفصت ) شیپ رکات وہں۔ ملع ہن ےہ ہک اپرویٹں وک MBR/CSCےک مکح ےک اطمقب ونسٹ اجری وہےئ ںیہ ای ںیہن۔ درتس ےہ ہک راکیرڈںیمااسیوکیئوبثتوموجدہنےہ۔درتسےہہکامہرےراکیرڈںیمدوعیذہایکامتمدصمہق وقنالت وموجد ںیہ وج ہک ہمکحم ےن احلص رک ر یھ ںیہ۔ زعزیہ اخوتن یک دروخاتس ومرہخ 27- 9-93یکلقنEx.P12اوروفوٹاکیپدروخاتس ومرہخ 02-1-93وجہکدرتفںیمومرہخ14-

R.S.A No.69/2006 9

12-94وک وموصل وہیئ ایکس لقن Ex.P13شیپ رکات وہں۔ زعزیہ اخوتن یک دروخاوتسں رپ وکیئ اکروایئ ہن وہیئ ےہ۔۔۔ مہ ےن زعزیہ اخوتن یک داتسوزیات bid sheet, P.T.D., P.T.Oرشاتک انہم ،ارقار انہم اور اتخمر انہم یک وقنل ،دعاتل ےس احلص رکےن ےک دعب ان داتسوزیاتیک verificationاےنپراکیرڈےسہنیکےہ۔ویکہکنالصراکیرڈامہرےاپسوموجد ہناھت۔ درتسےہ ہکراکیرڈ یکافحتظ ہمکحمیک ہقلعتمرباچن یکذہم داریےہ۔ درتسےہ ہک مہ ےنہقلعتمرباچنےسراکیرڈ بلایکاوراوہنںےنھکلرکجیھبدایہکراکیرڈدایتسب ہنےہ۔ازوخد اہکہک movementاک ادنراج اپای اجان رحتری ایکےہ۔ ہیروپرٹ الغم مصطفےےن یکےہ اس اک وکیئ دہعہدرجہنےہ۔درتسےہہکروپرٹ ےک درتسوہےناک وکیئوبثتراکیرڈ ںیموموجد ہن ےہ ازوخد اہک ہک اس ابرے ںیم آرسیف ااچنرج راکیرڈ روم یہ اتب اتکس ےہ۔ سج ااکلہر ےن رحتری ایک ہک راکیرڈ دایتسب ےہ اس ےک الخف ہن وت وکیئ انشکی ایک ایگ اور ہن یہ Proposeوہا۔ یسک ااکلہر ےک الخف زعزیہ اخوتن یک دروخاتس ےک دعب وکیئ رپہچ وفدجاری درج ہن وہا اھت۔ درتس ےہ ہک اوکنارئیروپرٹ29-4-84یکدصمہقلقنریمیافلئرپوموجدےہرگماسےکابرےںیموکیئ اکروایئ ہن یک یئگ ےہ۔ رصف ان وک المہظح رک ےک وجاب دوعی دالخ رک دای ایگ ےہ۔ اب امہرے اپساساکراکیرڈوموجدہنےہ۔درتس ےہ ہکدروخاتسزریآرڈر1رول10ضداساوکنارئی روپرٹوکالمہظحرکےنےکدعبدییئگیھت۔دبعادیجملاقدریامہرےہمکحمںیمالمزمےھت۔رگماب وہ راٹیرئ وہےکچ ںیہ۔ ملع ہن ےہ ہک دبعادیجمل اقدری ےک ایبن ےک دعب ررٹسج ےٹھپ وہےن ےک ابرے ںیمایبنےکدعبوکیئاکروایئوہیئےہایںیہن۔"

Ch. Abdul Saleem, petitioner/defendant (D.W.8) deposed that: " دتموعہی الپٹ Evacuee Property 90Fیھت اور االٹنمٹ ےئلیک اخیل یھت۔ 1/1/71وک ریمیوادلہےناسرپاقضبوہرکاچردویاریاگلرکٹیگاگلای۔وادلہےکاسھتںیمریماوھچاٹاھبیئ اور ےجیتھب ،وادل اصبح ان ےک اسھت رےتہ ےھت۔ وادلہ ےن رٹارفسن ےئلیک CH Formہمکحم احبایلت وک 27/10/73وک دای اس افرم رپ DSCےن اباقدعہ ڈنکیس آرسیف یک روپرٹ ےک دعب 28/12/76وک ذبرہعی مکح Ex.D2رپارپیٹ دتموعہی وادلہ ےک انم لقتنم رک دی Scheme RSS VIII Revised Settlementےکتحترپارپیٹلقتنموہیئیھتدعبازاںاسرپزمدی ریمعتات رک ےک ریطخ رمق رخچ یک۔۔۔۔ دمہیع ےن وج اکتاات شیپ ےیک ںیہ وہ یلع و اسز ی ںیہ راکیرڈںیماب وموجدہنےہ۔اور Traceableہنےہ۔ےلہپدمہیعےنیہاےنپfraudوکاپھچےن ےک ےیل اغبئ رکواای اس رپ 1990ںیم ںیم ےن ہمکحم احبایلت وک راکیرڈ یک دجدی لیکشت یک دروخاتس اہےئ (نیت) دںی ۔ یلہپ دروخاتس ےک reconstructionاک آرڈر وہا۔۔۔ ریمی وادلہ 1978ںیم وفتوہیئانیکوافتےکدعب ریمےاھبیئاورےجیتھبرپارپیٹدتموعہی رپ اقضب ںیہ۔"

During cross examination, he deposed that:

" وچہکن رتموہک اجدیئاد یھت اس ےیل امڈل اٹؤن وساسیٹئ ےس ہشقن اپس ہن رکواای اھت۔ مہ ےن وساسیٹئیکربممپشےکےیل applyہنایکاھت۔۔۔یلجب،اپین،وسیئسیگاوروفنےکنشکنکاکیفہن

R.S.A No.69/2006 10

ےھتےلہپوگلاےئےک ےھتھچک ریمےانم ھچکریمیزوہجےک انمںیہ۔ ےھجم اید ہن اھت ہک بس نشکنک 1983ےک دعب ےک ںیہ۔۔۔ وفوٹ اکیپ مکح ومرہخ 28/12/76فل لثم ےہ وج ExP17ےہ ںیمےن اےنپولیکوکدایاھت۔ Ex.P18ںیمےناےنپولیکوکہندییھت۔وفوٹاکیپ Bid Sheet Ex.P19یھب ںیم ےن ولیک وک ہن دی یھت۔ وفوٹ اکیپ ،اوکنارئی روپرٹ Ex.P20یھب ںیم ےن اےنپ ولیک وک ہن دی یھت۔۔۔ درتس ےہ ہک ںیم ےن دمایعن ےک الخف وفدجاری دقمہم رکواای اھت۔۔۔ طلغ ےہ ہک ریما رپہچ اخرج وہ ایگ اھت۔ ان ےک رپہچ ےک الخف Quashmentیک دروخاتس دی ےہ۔ درتس ےہ ہک اس Writںیم ہلصیف وسل دوعی ےک دعب وہاگ۔ درتس ےہ ہک Writاےنپ اھبیئ اور ویبی ےک رطف ےس یک ےہ۔۔۔۔ ےھجم ملع ہن ےہ ہک 1963ںیم زعزیہ اخوتنےنربممپشاحلصیکیھت۔"

)Muhammad Raza, Senior Clerk, Board of Revenue (D.W.2/1 deposed that:

" PTDررٹسج رمہاہ الای وہں اس اک Pageربمن missing7ےہ۔ ررٹسج ربمن 5یھب رمہاہ الای وہں۔ 89Fےک دعب 94Fوموجد ےہ رگم 90Fوموجد ہن ےہ۔ Pageربمن 184ےک دعب 187 ےہ۔ pageربمن missing 185ےہ۔ CSCIVررٹسج یھب الای وہں۔ 90Fاک ادنراج وطبرOpen Plotےہ۔"

During cross examination by the respondent/plaintiff, he deposed that:

" ںیم یئم 1995ںیم ہمکحم احبایلت ںیم آای اھت۔ راکیرڈ شیپ رکدہ ہمکحم یک وحتلی ںیم وہات ےہ۔ ہمکحم اک رفض ےہ ہک راکیرڈ وک افحبتظ رےھک۔ ےھجم ملع ہن ےہ ہک ہمکحم ےن یسک ااکلہر ےک الخف Missing Pagesےکقلعتماکروایئیکےہہکںیہن۔"

7.The Membership Certificate (Exh.P.1) was issued by the Model Town Society in favour of the respondent/plaintiff on the basis of PTO No.564637. dated 04.10.1960 during the cross examination conducted by the appellant/defendant. The attested copy of PTO (Exh.P.4), attested copy of order dated 17.05.1963 issued by the Settlement Department (Exh.P.5) , attested copy of report dated 02.05.1963 (Exh.P.6), attested copy of application of petitioner/defendant (Exh.P.7), attested copy order dated 14.06.1983 (Exh.P.8), original PTD (Exh.P.9) were produced by P.W.3/one of the respondents/plaintiffs. At that time, learned counsel for the appellant/defendant raised objection regarding

exhibition of the Exh.P.9 but the trial Court overruled the said objection. The attested copy of Auction Bid Proforma (Exh.P.3) is in the name of Mst. Aziz Khatoon in respect of plot No.90-F Model Town, Lahore. The copy of PTO No.564637 was produced as Exh.P.4. in the name of Mst. Aziz Khatoon singed by Sher Zaman, Deputy Settlement Commissioner dated 08.12.1960. Exh.P.5 is an order on which basis the PTD was issued in the name of Mst. Aziz Khatoon. Exh.P.6 is a report regarding the dues for issuance of PTD. Exh.P.7 is an application filed by Abdul Saleem, the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants/defendants. On his application proceedings (Exh.P.8) were initiated by the Settlement Department and it was observed that the application is baseless and the PTD had already been issued in the name of Mst. Aziz Khatoon/respondent/plaintiff and it was held that no further action is required on that application. The original certificate issued by the Model Town Society in favour of the respondent/plaintiff is available on record as Exh.P.10. Exh.P12 is an application filed by respondent/plaintiff for initiation of inquiry and criminal action against the persons who destroyed the record of plot NO.90-F of Model Town Society. Exh.P.14 is an application filed by Abdul Saleem (predecessor-in-interest of the appellant/defendant) for issuance of Transfer Order. Exh.P29 is copy of auction bid whereas Exh.P.30 is the PTO issued in favour of Aziz Khatoon. Ex.P.31 is the permission granted by the competent authority for issuance of PTD in favour Mst. Aziz Khatoon. All these documents prove that Mst. Aziz Khatoon, respondent/plaintiff, purchased plot No.90-F in open auction. It is settled law that a document can be rebutted by a document having better legal sanctity only. In this regard, reliance is placed on the cases titled as Abdul Ghani & Others. Vs. Mst. Yasmeen Khan & Others (2011 SCMR 837) and Saleem Akhtar Vs. Nisar Ahmad (PLD 2000 Lahore 385). It is

important to mention here that till to-date the Settlement Department has not challenged the veracity of the PTO & PTD issued in favour of Mst. Aziz Khatoon. Moreover, the present appellants/defendants have not challenged the documents (PTO / PTD etc.) in favour of Mst. Aziz Khatoon till to date.

8.Further, the appellants/defendants appended the copy of inquiry (Exh.P.20), of plot No.90-F Model Town, Lahore and both the parties have placed reliance on the said document. In the said inquiry report, it is observed that the plot was purchased by Mst. Aziz Khatoon in open auction and the all dues were paid through compensation book and accordingly PTD was issued. Thereafter Settlement Department has been functus officio. After issuance of PTD, plot was not available in pool of the Settlement Department as such the Settlement Authorities were precluded to make any further allotment until and unless the earlier allotment was reversed and instrument of title were cancelled, whereas here in this case as per law property was auctioned, which was confirmed and PTO / PTD was issued (Original was produced by the respondent/plaintiff) and same were still intact but in contravention of the above any subsequent allotment is made, that would be treated as bogus and illegal. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Centre-V, Lahore, in paragraph No.84 of the inquiry, made observation as under:

“Now the plot bearing No.90/F, Model Town, Lahore stands transferred to Aziza Khanam through auction and PTD stands issued as back as 1963. On the other hand Mr. Fayyaz Qureshi, Ex-DSC. has confirmed his transfer order dated 28.12.76 in favour of Mst. Razia Umar, meaning thereby that the genuineness of the file located from the dump, which was being treated as bogus file, is now proved but being a double transfer case no action can be taken on the second order dated Upon the aforesaid report, the Settlement Commissioner, Lahore passed remarks dated 29.04.1984 as under:

“Mr. Fayyaz Qureshi perhaps was proceeded against in this case. DSC should have collected the record and give his... view. Also it is clear that the property auctioned ....afterwards.”

With above these comments, the Settlement Commissioner submitted report to the Member, Board of Revenue who passed following order dated 02.05.1984:

“legally we cannot interfere in a case where PTD was issued in 1963 and it is to... record. Nor can we go by the testimony of a retired officer whose own conduct was not beyond doubt. The petitioner shall avail of any legal remedy... as the department has become functus officio.”

The appellants/defendants never challenged the aforesaid findings/decisions before any forum as such the same have attained the status of finality and have become past and closed transaction. Reliance is placed on a case titled as Pakistan International Airlines Corporation Vs. Aziz ur Rehman Chaudhary and another (2016 SCMR 14).

9.The appellants/defendants claim that the allotment was made in favour of their predecessor Mst. Razia Umar under Settlement Scheme No.VIII (reconstituted). In chapter 1 Para 2 in the said scheme only available properties could be transferred but the plot in question had already been allotted and same was not available in the settlement pool as observed in the inquiry report (Ex.P20) of the Settlement Authorities which is also produced in evidence by the respondent/plaintiff. Therefore, as the suit property was not available for any further allotment as such it could not be allotted in favour of the appellants/defendants and if any alleged order of allotment was procured by the appellants/defendants from the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, same would be collusive, nullity, void and coram non judice in the eyes of law. Reliance is placed on the cases titled as Muhammad Ramzan & Others Vs. Member (Revenue) Chief Settlement Commissioner & Others (1997 SCMR 1635) and Ali

Muhammad through LRs & Others Vs. Chief Settlement Commissioner & Others (2001 SCMR 1822).

10.As regard the argument of learned counsel for the appellants/defendants, that consideration / dues of the said plot were not paid by the respondent/ plaintiff/Mst. Aziza Khatoon as such she is debarred to claim any right or title of the suit property, suffice it to say that if there was any controversy regarding deficiency in payment of consideration that is a matter inter se respondent/plaintiff auction purchaser and the Settlement Department whereas the Department has not issued any notice to respondent/plaintiff for payment of any consideration nor raised any such objection in its written statement as such this argument is misconceived and same is repelled accordingly.

11.Learned counsel for the appellants alleged that the attested copies of the record are forged documents which were got prepared by the respondent/plaintiff in collusiveness of the officials of the Settlement Department but conversely the appellants/defendants produced Maqbool Ahmad, Ahlmad in the office of Deputy Settlement Commissioner (Urban) as D.W.5 who in his cross examination admitted availability of the attested copies of the applications of respondent/plaintiff as well as inquiry report in the official record of the Department. Further, Ch. Abdul Saleem, appellant/defendant (D.W.8) in his statement deposed that

دمہیعےنوجاکتااتشیپےیکںیہوہ یلعواسز یںیہراکیرڈںیمابوموجدہنےہ۔ (emphasis supplied)

It means that the said documents were earlier in existence but the same were subsequently got misplaced by the officials of the Department. This DW also admitted in cross examination that without having PTO/ PTD, the membership of Model Town

Society could not be obtained. Even he did not deny the issuance of membership in favour of the respondent/plaintiff by the Model Town Society in 1963 whereas the respondent/plaintiff successfully proved that after purchasing the suit property, she got the membership of the Model Town Society.

12.Another aspect of the matter is that the appellant/defendant built his defensive stance merely upon an alleged allotment order dated 28.12.1976 issued by the then Deputy Settlement Commissioner / Muhammad Fayyaz Qureshi in favour of Mst. Razia Umar, the mother of Ch. Muhammad Abdul Saleem/defendant No.1 whereas said officer while appearing as D.W.2 in his cross examination admitted that the respondent/plaintiff lodged a criminal case against him in the instant matter. He also admitted during his cross examination that many criminal cases were lodged against him in respect of allotment of properties. On the application of the respondent/plaintiff, an inquiry was conducted by the Settlement Department wherein the Settlement Commissioner as well as Member, Board of Revenue also raised serious doubts on the conduct of the said Deputy Settlement Commissioner. This shows that the appellant/ defendant obtained the allotment order on the basis of fraud and it is settled law that fraud vitiates the most solemn proceedings and any edifice so raised on the basis of such fraudulent transaction, that stand automatically dismantled and any ill-gotten gain achieved by fraudster cannot be validated under any norms of laws. Reliance in this regard is placed on cases cited as Nawab Syed Raunaq Ali etc. Vs. Chief Settlement Commissioner & Others (PLD 1973 SC 236), Lahore Development Authority Vs. Firdous Steel Mills (Pvt.) Limited (2010 SCMR 1097) and Mst. Nazeeran and others Vs. Ali Bux and others (2024 SCMR 1271).

13.The trial court has failed to appreciate the legal and factual aspects of the case and dismissed the suit of the respondents/plaintiffs whereas the first appellate court, after discussing the facts as well as evidence of the parties, through a well-reasoned judgment & decree has rightly allowed the appeal of the respondents and decreed their suit as prayed for. It is well settled law that in the event of conflict of judgments, findings of appellate Court are to be preferred and respected, unless it is shown from the record that such findings are not supported by evidence. Reliance is placed on the cases reported as Muhammad Hafeez & Another Vs. District Judge, Karachi East & Another (2008 SCMR 398) and Rao Abdul Rehman (deceased) through legal heirs Vs. Muhammad Afzal (deceased) through legal heirs and others (2023 SCMR 815).

14.Resultantly, this appeal being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.

(Ch. Muhammad Iqbal) Judge

Announced in open Court on 01.11.2024.

Judge Approved for reporting.

Judge Abdul Hafeez