Pop etc. vs Muhammad Arjamand Khan etc.

Stereo. H C J D A-38.

JUDGMENT SHEET

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,

MULTAN

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

R.F.A. No.504 of 2023

Province of Punjab through District Collector, Multan & others Versus Muhammad Arjumand Khan & others

JUDGMENT

Date of hearing: 08.09.2026.

Appellants by: M/s. Malik Muhammad Bakhsh Khakhi and Salman Asif Warraich, Assistant Advocates General, along with Syed Waseem Haider Shah, Tehsildar City and Munir Raza, CRO.

Respondents by: M/s. Ch. Muhammad Naeem Raza and Zulfiqar Ali, Advocates.

MUHAMMAD SAJID MEHMOOD SETHI, J.:- This consolidated judgment shall decide the instant R.F.A. No.504 of 2023 along with connected R.F.A. Nos.478, 479 and 484 of 2023 and R.S.A. No.01 of 2024, as common questions of law and fact arise in these matters.

2.The instant appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 23.06.2023 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Multan, whereby the suit instituted by the respondents / plaintiffs for recovery of compensation, cancellation of Fard Badar No.634 dated 20.03.2013 and permanent injunction was decreed. The respondents / plaintiffs were declared owners of the suit properties comprised in Khasra Nos.856, 857, 863, 865 and 869, the impugned Fard Badar was declared null and void to the extent of their ownership, and the revenue authorities were directed to correct the revenue record in accordance with the previous entries. The learned Trial Court also awarded special costs at the rate of 20% of the actual compensation amount.

Through connected R.F.A. No.478 of 2023, Farooq Ahmad has challenged the same judgment and decree to the extent that, while decreeing the suit for recovery of compensation along with special

R.F.A. No.504 of 2023 & connected cases

costs, the learned Trial Court awarded special costs at the rate of 20% as a one-time amount, instead of 20% per annum on the prevailing market value of the acquired property until final payment, and seeks enhancement thereof.

Through connected R.F.A. No.479 of 2023, Mushtaq Ali and others have similarly assailed the judgment and decree dated 23.06.2023 to the extent of award of special costs, seeking enhancement from 20% as a one-time amount to 20% per annum on the market value of the acquired property until final payment. Likewise, through connected R.F.A. No.484 of 2023, Muhammad Arjumand Khan and others have challenged the judgment and decree dated 23.06.2023 to the extent of award of special costs, seeking enhancement thereof to 20% per annum on the market value of the acquired property until final realization. Through connected R.S.A. No.01 of 2024, Pak P.W.D. and others have challenged the order and decree dated 28.09.2023 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Multan, whereby their appeal against the judgment and decree dated 23.06.2023 was dismissed as barred by limitation. They seek setting aside of both decisions and, consequently, dismissal of the suit.

3.Briefly stated, the respondents / plaintiffs claimed ownership of land comprised in Khasra Nos.856, 857, 863, 865 and 869, Mauza Taraf Juma Khalsa, Multan, on the basis of registered sale deeds, mutations and the revenue record. The land was acquired for the extension of Chowk Kumharanwala to Peeran Ghaib Road through Gazette Notifications dated 04.03.2011 and 22.03.2011, but compensation was allegedly not paid to the owners. The affected landowners approached this Court through various writ petitions and, upon their dismissal with the observation that complicated questions of title were involved and that they could approach the appropriate forum, instituted the underlying civil suit for recovery of compensation, cancellation of Fard Badar No.634 dated 20.03.2013 and permanent injunction. Their grievance was that, in the meantime, the said Fard Badar had altered the relevant revenue entries in favour

R.F.A. No.504 of 2023 & connected cases

of the Irrigation Department. The appellants/defendants contested the suit, maintaining that the disputed land belonged to the Irrigation Department and that the ownership entries relied upon by the plaintiffs were erroneous. The learned Trial Court framed the following issues:-

ISSUES:

1.Whether defendant No.01 obtained suit properties from plaintiffs through intimidation which is against Article 24 of Pakistan for the year 1973 whereas, "Fard Baddar" dated 20.03.2011 is against law and facts? OPP

2.Whether defendants No.01 to 08 are bound to pay amount of suit property as per gazette Notification Land Collector (LAC) dated 22.03.2011 to plaintiffs? OPP

3.Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get special costs 20% every year from defendants? OPP

4.Whether plaintiffs are entitled for decree of suit for recovery of compensated amount along with mandatory injunction as prayed for? OPP

5.Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action and locus standi to file instant suit against defendants? OPD-01,03 &09

6.Whether instant suit is not maintainable in its present form and same is liable to be dismissed? OPD-01,03 &09

7.Relief?

After recording the evidence of the parties and examining the revenue record, the learned Trial Court, vide judgment and decree dated 23.06.2023, decreed the suit, declared the respondents / plaintiffs owners of the disputed properties, declared the impugned Fard Badar null and void to the extent of their ownership, directed correction of the revenue record, awarded compensation and further imposed special costs at the rate of 20% of the actual compensation amount per plaintiff.

The aforesaid judgment and decree have given rise to the present batch of appeals. The main R.F.A. No.504 of 2023 has been preferred by the appellants / defendants against the decree on merits, challenging, inter alia, the findings regarding title, validity of Fard

R.F.A. No.504 of 2023 & connected cases

Badar and entitlement to compensation and special costs. R.F.A. Nos.478, 479 and 484 of 2023, preferred by different decree- holders/plaintiffs, are confined to the quantum of special costs, the appellants therein contending that, instead of a one-time award of 20%, they were entitled to 20% per annum, per plaintiff, on the prevailing market value of the acquired property until payment/final realization. R.S.A. No.01 of 2024, filed by Pak P.W.D. and others, arises from the order and decree dated 28.09.2023 of the learned Additional District Judge, Multan, whereby their appeal against the judgment and decree dated 23.06.2023 was dismissed as barred by limitation. Since R.F.A. No.504 of 2023 is within time, R.S.A. No.01 of 2024 is being decided on merits.

4.Learned Law Officer appearing for the appellants in R.F.A. No.504 of 2023 contends that the learned Trial Court failed to properly appreciate the rival evidence and erroneously determined the respondents / plaintiffs to be owners of the disputed land. According to him, the property belonged to the Provincial Government through the Irrigation Department and the respondents / plaintiffs failed to establish any lawful title or entitlement to compensation. It is further contended that Fard Badar No.634 dated 20.03.2013 was prepared for correction of the revenue record and could not have been declared ineffective by the learned Trial Court. He consequently seeks setting aside of the impugned judgment and decree. In R.S.A. No.01 of 2024, learned Law Officer contends that the learned Additional District Judge erred in dismissing the appeal as barred by limitation and failed to appreciate that another aggrieved Government party had independently challenged the same judgment through a Regular First Appeal within time. He further reiterates the objections regarding title, legality of Fard Badar and entitlement to compensation. Learned counsel for the appellants in R.F.A. Nos.478, 479 and 484 of 2023 submits that although the learned Trial Court decreed the suit and awarded special costs at 20%, it wrongly treated the same as a one-time amount despite Issue No.3 referring to 20% every year.

R.F.A. No.504 of 2023 & connected cases

According to him, the plaintiffs were entitled to 20% per annum on the prevailing market value until final realization.

5.Conversely, learned counsel for the respondents / plaintiffs has supported the impugned judgment and submitted that the respondents/ plaintiffs established their ownership through registered title documents, mutations and longstanding revenue record. According to learned counsel, the Fard Badar was prepared unilaterally, without notice to the affected owners, decades after the original entries, and only when the question of payment of compensation had become contentious.

6.We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record with their assistance. Since the learned Trial Court itself determined the controversy through the issues reproduced above, the matter is appropriately considered issue-wise.

ISSUE NO.1

7.The burden of this issue rested upon the plaintiffs. The documentary evidence produced by them establishes that their claim of ownership was not founded merely upon isolated revenue entries. They produced registered sale deeds, including Exh.P-1, P-14, P-16, P-32 to P-38, supported by corresponding mutations and successive Jamabandis / Records of Rights, including Exh.P-3, P-4, P-10 to P- 12, P-19 and P-20. Such documents, read cumulatively and in the absence of any successful challenge to their execution or validity, furnished substantial evidence of their proprietary interest. The initial burden under the relevant provisions of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, was thus discharged by the plaintiffs. The defendants, on the other hand, sought to displace this longstanding documentary record primarily through Fard Badar No.634 dated 20.03.2013. The question, therefore, is not merely whether a revenue entry can ever be corrected, but whether the particular alteration made through the impugned Fard Badar was authorized by law and made in accordance with the statutory procedure.

8.Section 44 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 assumes particular significance. Where a dispute arises during the

R.F.A. No.504 of 2023 & connected cases

making, revision or preparation of the record, the law contemplates an inquiry in which the interested persons are afforded an opportunity of establishing their respective claims. The requirement is not an empty formality. It incorporates the basic principle that no person whose proprietary interest is liable to be affected by an alteration of the record should be condemned unheard. Under sub-section (1) of Section 44, the Revenue Officer, whether acting suo motu or upon an application of an aggrieved party, is obligated to conduct such inquiry as is deemed necessary and to record in writing the reasons underlying his decision, while sub-section (2) is intended to ensure that the process remains transparent and that all stakeholders are afforded a genuine opportunity of being heard. Whereas in the present case, a mutation or Fard Badar has been reviewed or corrected without notice to the party whose interest is affected, the exercise itself is liable to be set at naught. In the present case, CW-1, the Patwari who prepared the Fard Badar, admitted during cross-examination that no notice was issued to the private landowners before preparation of Fard Badar No.634. He further stated that the Fard Badar had been prepared pursuant to directions of higher authorities, but was unable to produce or identify any written order, notice, proceedings or inquiry through which the affected owners had been called upon to establish their claim. Thus, the statutory procedure contemplated by Section 44 was not shown to have been followed. The violation becomes all the more significant because the impugned Fard Badar was not directed towards a minor clerical or arithmetical correction. Its practical effect was to disturb longstanding entries relating to private ownership and to prejudice the owners' entitlement to compensation for land subsequently acquired for a public project. Such an exercise, undertaken without notice and without an identifiable inquiry, offends not only the statutory scheme but also the principle of audi alteram partem embodied in the constitutional guarantee of fair procedure under Article 10-A of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Reference can be made to Ghulzar Ahmad Khan and 2 others v. Deputy Commissioner, Hafizabad and 2 others (2002 CLC

R.F.A. No.504 of 2023 & connected cases

1746) and Mir Mazhar Talpur v. Province of Sindh through Chief Secretary and 5 others (2026 CLC 40).

9.Section 45 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 also places substantive limits upon variation of existing entries. An entry cannot be altered merely because an officer subsequently forms an opinion that the earlier entry was incorrect. The statutory scheme contemplates variation on recognized legal foundations, including facts proved or admitted to have occurred, agreement of the interested parties, or a decree or order of a competent Court, as the case may be. In the present matter, none of these foundations has been established. No proved or admitted fact has been identified demonstrating that the plaintiffs' longstanding ownership entries were erroneous. There was no agreement of all interested parties. Nor was any decree or order of a competent Court produced authorizing the substitution of the plaintiffs' entries with those claimed by the Irrigation Department. The Patwari admittedly acted upon alleged verbal directions of higher authorities and no written order constituting the basis of the alteration was brought on record. This position finds ample support in consistent judicial pronouncements. It is settled that the correction of entries envisaged under Section 45 has a very limited scope and can be invoked only where all the parties have consented or where the correction is supported by a decree or order of a competent Court binding on all the parties. Reference can be made to Khair Muhammad and others v. Hayat Khan and others (2026 CLC 307).

10.It is equally settled that no disputed entry in a Record of Rights or periodical record can be altered on the ground of mistake or fraud except in cases of an obvious clerical error or patent fact requiring no elaborate inquiry, and that such disputed entries, more so after the lapse of several decades, can be corrected only through a decree of a competent Court and not by an order of any official in the hierarchy of revenue authorities. Likewise, entries in the record of rights cannot be altered in a subsequent record otherwise than by making entries in accordance with facts proved or admitted to have occurred, or which are supported by a decree or order binding on the parties. The

R.F.A. No.504 of 2023 & connected cases

impugned Fard Badar, therefore, lacked the necessary statutory foundation and could not lawfully be employed to adjudicate a disputed question of title. Reference can be made to Allah Bakhsh v. Member (J-VIII) Board of Revenue, Punjab and 11 others (PLD 2012 Lahore 160) and Muhammad Hanif and 6 others v. Syed Zakir Hussain Shah and 8 others (2022 MLD 143).

11.It is also material that CW-1 admitted that the impugned Fard Badar did not even incorporate Khata No.1240, wherein the plaintiffs' properties were situated. This circumstance materially weakens the defendants' contention that Fard Badar No.634 constituted a lawful correction of the very entries upon which the plaintiffs based their claim. An instrument which does not demonstrably address the relevant Khata cannot, without further evidence, be treated as conclusive proof that the plaintiffs' proprietary entries stood lawfully extinguished. The timing of the alteration also warrants consideration. The evidence shows that the plaintiffs had already approached this Court for release of compensation and proceedings relating to non- payment thereof were pending. The impugned Fard Badar was subsequently prepared in 2013, purporting to correct entries dating back several decades. Although a definitive finding of personal mala fide against an individual official is neither necessary nor appropriate in the absence of conclusive proof, the sequence of events is a relevant circumstance in examining whether the power of correction was exercised for the purpose for which the statute confers it. It is by now well settled that a mere change of ownership, unsupported by corroborating evidence, cannot be allowed to be substituted on the strength of a Fard Badar alone. Moreover, entries in the revenue record cannot be altered through attestation of a Fard Badar where the recorded owner has, in his lifetime, never challenged or disputed the transactions reflected in those very entries. Reliance is placed upon Habib Khan and another v. Mst. Bibi Zohra and 2 others (PLD 2012 Peshawar 80) and Muhammad Iqbal and others v. Rab Nawaz and others (2018 YLR 1813).

R.F.A. No.504 of 2023 & connected cases

12.The distinction between the Irrigation Department's alleged land and the land acquired from the plaintiffs is equally important. The historical entries relied upon by the Government relate to Khasra Nos.850, 851, 90, 95 and 96, whereas the land forming the subject matter of the acquisition and the present suit comprises Khasra Nos.856, 857, 863, 865 and 869. The defendants have not produced convincing documentary evidence establishing that these different Khasra numbers represent the same physical parcels or that the registered title documents produced by the plaintiffs actually pertain to Government land. On the contrary, the official evidence lends support to the plaintiffs. In proceedings arising out of Writ Petition No.6274/2012 and Contempt Petition No.712/2012, the Land Acquisition Collector, in his para-wise comments, acknowledged private ownership in respect of land measuring 14 Marlas comprised in Khasra No.869. DW-1, the official witness produced by the defendants, also admitted during cross-examination that the ownership of the plaintiffs was correct according to the record. He was unable to identify the relevant Khata numbers or furnish a satisfactory factual basis for the assertion that the suit properties belonged to the Irrigation Department.

13.It is settled that a revenue entry, by itself, is not conclusive proof of title. The present case, however, does not rest upon revenue entries alone. The plaintiffs' case is supported by registered instruments, mutations, successive Records of Rights, acquisition documents and official correspondence. Conversely, the defendants have failed to establish a superior title through the underlying record and seek to rely substantially upon a subsequently prepared Fard Badar which itself suffers from procedural and substantive defects. It is well settled that once a mutation entry has been incorporated in a Jamabandi, it should not be altered save on the basis of an obvious clerical error, and cannot be reversed or reviewed several years later merely on an allegation of fraud in collusion with the revenue staff; the party aggrieved by such an entry must seek his remedy by way of a civil suit. It is equally settled that Revenue Courts/authorities have

R.F.A. No.504 of 2023 & connected cases

no power to vary or override a longstanding entry in violation of Section 45 in the absence of a decree, order or judgment of a competent Court, and it is the civil/revenue Court, and not an official in the hierarchy of the revenue department, which alone can direct such correction. In these circumstances, Fard Badar No.634 dated 20.03.2013 cannot be permitted to operate as an instrument of adjudication whereby an existing proprietary right is extinguished without notice, inquiry or proof of the foundational error. The impugned Fard Badar, to the extent it purports to alter the plaintiffs' ownership entries in respect of the suit properties, was therefore rightly declared ineffective and liable to be cancelled. Issue No.1 is accordingly answered in favour of the plaintiffs. Reference can be made to Mst. Shireen Khanum v. Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and others (2001 YLR 2387) and Mst. Gulzar Bibi and 2 others v. Chief Commissioner, I.C.T. and 19 others

(2009 CLC 542).

ISSUE NO.2

14.Once the plaintiffs' ownership of the relevant Khasra numbers is established, the question of compensation follows from the acquisition itself. The Gazette Notifications dated 04.03.2011 and 22.03.2011, together with the official correspondence and field survey material, establish that the land was acquired for extension of Chowk Kumharanwala to Peeran Ghaib Road. Exh.P-21 to P-25, including the field survey report Exh.P-22, further support the plaintiffs' assertion that the land was identified and its market value was assessed for purposes of acquisition. The official record therefore establishes two material facts: first, that the plaintiffs' land formed part of the acquisition; and second, that the acquisition was undertaken for a public purpose and the property was thereafter utilized for the road project. The defendants cannot simultaneously rely upon the acquisition proceedings for taking possession of the land and deny the consequential obligation to compensate the persons whose title to that land has been established. The evidence of DW-1 is also significant. He admitted that the road extension had been

R.F.A. No.504 of 2023 & connected cases

physically completed and was operational over the acquired site. Thus, the State has not merely proposed to acquire the property; it has taken and utilized the land for the public project. Having taken possession and derived the benefit of private property, the State cannot defeat the corresponding claim for compensation merely by relying upon a later revenue entry which has itself been found to have been prepared contrary to the statutory procedure.

15.Article 24 of the Constitution affords protection to property rights and permits compulsory acquisition only in accordance with law and subject to the constitutional requirements relating to compensation. The constitutional protection would be rendered illusory if the State could take private land for a public purpose, utilize it for that purpose, and thereafter avoid payment to the established owners through an administrative alteration of the revenue record unsupported by lawful procedure. The principle of estoppel also operates against the defendants to the extent recognized by the evidence. The acquisition proceedings, official correspondence, valuation material and physical completion of the road constitute official conduct inconsistent with the subsequent assertion that the plaintiffs had no proprietary interest in the acquired land. While an admission or conduct of an official cannot create title where none exists, it is highly relevant where it corroborates an already established chain of registered title documents and revenue entries. The defendants have also failed to establish any physical overlap or title nexus between the Khasra numbers historically claimed by the Irrigation Department and those acquired from the plaintiffs. The mere assertion that both sets of Khasra numbers relate to Government land does not discharge the burden of proving that the very land owned by the plaintiffs was, in fact, Government property. We, therefore, find that the plaintiffs successfully established their entitlement to compensation for the acquired land. The obligation to pay compensation cannot be defeated through Fard Badar No.634, which has already been found legally defective. Issue No.2 is answered in favour of the plaintiffs.

R.F.A. No.504 of 2023 & connected cases

ISSUE NO.3

16.The learned Trial Court answered this issue in favour of the plaintiffs by awarding special costs at 20% of the actual compensation amount as a one-time amount. Through R.F.A. Nos.478, 479 and 484 of 2023, the plaintiffs seek enhancement of the award to 20% per annum on the prevailing market value until final realization. This contention cannot be accepted merely on the basis of the wording of the issue. An issue frames the controversy requiring adjudication; it does not, by itself, confer a substantive right to the relief claimed. The appellants (in R.F.A. Nos.478, 479 and 484 of 2023) have not been able to point out any statutory provision or recognized legal principle which would justify converting the award of special costs into a recurring annual liability calculated on the prevailing market value until realization. The claim for enhancement to 20% per annum is, therefore, declined.

17.However, the award of special costs at 20% as a one-time amount also calls for reconsideration. The learned Trial Court has not disclosed the legal basis, objective parameters or sufficient reasons for fixing special costs at the rate of 20% of the actual compensation amount. There is no meaningful discussion regarding the conduct of the parties, the nature of the proceedings, the expenses incurred, the duration of the litigation, or any other circumstance warranting quantification of special costs at the said rate. While the Court may, in an appropriate case, exercise discretion in awarding special costs, such discretion must be exercised judiciously and upon consideration of relevant factors, with reasons sufficient to demonstrate the basis of the amount determined. The mere fact that the litigation has continued for a considerable period cannot, by itself, justify a recurring annual charge or an unexplained percentage of the compensation amount.

18.Consequently, while the claim for 20% per annum is declined, the quantum of one-time special costs awarded by the learned Trial Court is set aside and the matter is remanded for fresh determination. The learned Trial Court shall, after affording the parties an

R.F.A. No.504 of 2023 & connected cases

opportunity of hearing, determine the amount, if any, payable by way of special costs in accordance with law and through a reasoned order. Issue No.3 is answered accordingly.

ISSUE NO.4

19.The findings on Issues Nos.1 and 2 establish the plaintiffs' ownership of the acquired properties and their entitlement to compensation. The impugned Fard Badar having been found legally ineffective, the corresponding revenue record requires correction so as to restore the position supported by the plaintiffs' established title documents and the lawful revenue entries preceding the impugned alteration. The relief of mandatory injunction is consequently ancillary to the declaration already granted. Once the plaintiffs' proprietary interest has been established and the subsequent alteration of the record has been found without lawful foundation, the revenue authorities cannot be permitted to retain entries inconsistent with the adjudicated title. The official correspondence and acquisition record further establish that the property was acquired and utilized for the public project. The State cannot retain the benefit of the acquired property without satisfying the corresponding obligation to compensate its lawful owners in accordance with the applicable acquisition proceedings and determined compensation. The plaintiffs are, therefore, entitled to recovery of the compensation lawfully assessed/payable in respect of their respective acquired properties, subject to adjustment of any amount, if any already paid, and to correction of the revenue record in accordance with this judgment. Issue No.4 is answered in favour of the plaintiffs.

ISSUE NO.5

20.The plaintiffs claimed ownership of identified immovable properties, challenged a specific Fard Badar which allegedly prejudiced their title, asserted that their land had been acquired for a public project and claimed compensation which had not been paid to them. These circumstances constitute a direct and subsisting cause of action. Their locus standi also flows from the very title documents and

R.F.A. No.504 of 2023 & connected cases

acquisition proceedings relied upon by them. The fact that the defendants disputed their title did not extinguish their right to approach a competent civil Court for adjudication of that dispute. Rather, the disputed question of title was precisely the reason why the plaintiffs were required to seek adjudication through a competent forum after being relegated from the writ jurisdiction. The earlier proceedings before this Court, culminating in the order dated 12.04.2017, did not finally adjudicate the proprietary dispute in favour of the defendants. The plaintiffs were directed to avail the appropriate remedy. Their subsequent institution of the civil suit was, therefore, neither without cause of action nor without locus standi. Issue No.5 is answered against the defendants.

ISSUE NO.6

21.No legal bar to the maintainability of the suit has been established. The plaintiffs sought determination of their title, cancellation of the impugned revenue entry, recovery of compensation and consequential injunction. These reliefs arose from the same factual controversy and were appropriately brought before the competent civil forum. The fact that the dispute involved revenue entries did not oust the jurisdiction of the civil Court where the underlying controversy concerned substantive proprietary rights which the revenue authorities themselves were not competent to conclusively adjudicate through an informal correction. It is well settled that longstanding entries in the revenue record can only be challenged before, and corrected by, the civil Court which alone has exclusive jurisdiction over such matters, and that a Revenue Officer or Revenue Court has no jurisdiction to entertain matters involving complicated questions of law or fact. Reference can be made to Muhammad Ali and others v. Ghulam Rasool and others (2011 YLR 1625). Indeed, the defendants' own reliance upon the disputed Fard Badar demonstrated the necessity of judicial determination of the competing claims. The earlier proceedings before this Court also furnish no ground for holding the civil suit to be non-maintainable. Rather, the plaintiffs instituted the suit after being relegated to the

R.F.A. No.504 of 2023 & connected cases

appropriate forum. The defendants have failed to identify any statutory provision, previous adjudication or other legal impediment rendering the suit incompetent. Issue No.6 is accordingly answered against the defendants.

ISSUE NO.7 — RELIEF

22.The cumulative effect of the foregoing discussion is that the plaintiffs have established their title to the suit properties through registered title documents, mutations and the longstanding revenue record. The defendants have failed to establish any superior title of the Irrigation Department to the suit land or to show that the plaintiffs' Khasra numbers correspond to those historically claimed by the Department. Fard Badar No.634 dated 20.03.2013 was prepared without notice to the affected owners and without any demonstrated inquiry under Section 44 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, while the statutory requirements for variation of the existing entries under Section 45 thereof were also not shown to have been fulfilled. The alleged verbal directions of higher authorities, unsupported by any written order or lawful proceedings, could not confer jurisdiction to alter the proprietary entries. The Fard Badar, to the extent it affected the plaintiffs' proprietary entries, was, therefore, rightly declared ineffective.

23.The acquisition record, official correspondence, field survey and Gazette Notifications, coupled with the physical utilization of the land for the public purpose, establish the plaintiffs' entitlement to compensation. Having acquired and utilized the private property, the State cannot deny the corresponding compensation to the established owners on the basis of an unlawful revenue entry. The findings of the learned Trial Court on Issues Nos.1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 are, therefore, upheld.

24.As regards Issue No.3, for the reasons recorded hereinbefore, the plaintiffs have failed to establish any lawful basis for enhancement of special costs to 20% per annum on the prevailing market value until final realization. That claim is accordingly declined. However, the

R.F.A. No.504 of 2023 & connected cases

one-time award of special costs at 20% of the actual compensation amount was made without disclosing sufficient legal basis or parameters for its quantification. The quantum of special costs is, therefore, set aside and the matter is remanded to the learned Trial Court for fresh determination in accordance with law, after affording the parties an opportunity of hearing and passing a reasoned order.

FINAL ORDER

25.For the reasons recorded above, all these appeals i.e., R.F.A. No.504 of 2023, R.S.A. No.01 of 2024, R.F.A. Nos.478, 479 and 484 of 2023 are allowed to the extent that the quantum of one-time special costs at 20% of the actual compensation amount per plaintiff awarded by the learned Trial Court is set aside and the matter is remanded to the learned Trial Court for fresh determination thereof in accordance with law. However, the judgment and decree dated 23.06.2023 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Multan to the extent of findings on ownership, validity of Fard Badar No.634 dated 20.03.2013, entitlement to compensation, cause of action, locus standi and maintainability are upheld and R.F.A. No.504 of 2023 and R.S.A. No.01 of 2024 to this extent are dismissed. The plaintiffs shall remain entitled to the compensation lawfully payable in respect of the acquired land, subject to adjustment of any amount already received, and to correction of the revenue record in accordance with the findings recorded herein. No order as to costs.

(Sultan Tanvir Ahmad) (Muhammad Sajid Mehmood Sethi) Judge Judge

APPROVED FOR REPORTING

Judge Judge *Sultan / A.H.S.*