Citation Name: 2025 CLC 1744 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case RASOOL BUX vs The PROVINCE OF SINDH th

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Citation Name: 2025 CLC 1744 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case RASOOL BUX VS The PROVINCE OF SINDH through Secretary Revenue Department, Karachi S. 10---Sindh Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967), S. 164---Sindh Revenue Jurisdiction Act (X of 1876), S. 11---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XLI, R. 31---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 10-A---State land, grant of---Cancellation of grant by the revenue authorities---Scope---Grant of State land cannot be cancelled after acquisition of proprietary rights---Order passed by Board of Revenue cancelling the grant challenged before the civil court---Jurisdiction of civil court---Scope---Civil court as the court of ultimate jurisdiction---Order passed by Board of Revenue could be challenged before the civil court---Right of fair trial---Issuing notice to affected party and affording opportunity of hearing, principle of---Facts in brevity were that the applicant was granted few acres of agricultural land by the colonization officer in 1991-92 upon full payment of tenancy installments, with subsequent survey, issuance of T.O. Form, and entry in revenue records, however, in 2003, the executive district officer (revenue)/respondent No. 2 cancelled the land grant without issuing notice or affording a hearing, claiming the land was within 20 chains of the village site and reserved for villagers---Petitioner upon facing dispossession threats from private respondents filed a civil suit for declaration along with permanent and mandatory injunction which the Trial Court decreed in his favor---On appeal by private respondents, the appellate court reversed the decree, dismissing the suit as barred under S. 11 of the Sindh Land Revenue Jurisdiction Act, 1876---The applicant then filed a revision petition before the High Court asserting that the cancellation was illegal, done without jurisdiction and in violation of natural justice, and that civil court jurisdiction was not barred in such cases---The moot point involved in the present matter was "the grant of land to the petitioner and its cancellation by the authorities"---Held: The Colonization and Disposal of Government Lands (Sindh) Act, 1912 (the Act 1912) provided a mechanism for grant of state land on harap conditions and cancellation of grants in case of any violation by the allottee---Grant in favor of the applicant was not cancelled on account of any deficiency or breach envisaged in subsection (5) of the S. 10 of the said Act, instead, it was cancelled on the ground that the suit property fell within 20 chains of the village site, hence was not permissible for grant as envisaged in condition 13 of the Statement of Conditions of 1989 issued by Land Utilization Department Government of Sindh for grant of state land---The respondent No. 2 while passing the impugned order lost sight of the important aspect of case that the grant had already matured and applicant had become full owner of the suit property, after issuance of T.O Form, whereby, entries in the record of rights were also maintained in his favor---Moreover, since the omission of S. 30 of the Act, 1912 through Sindh Repealing and Amending Act, 1975 the revenue/colonization authorities did not enjoy the power to cancel grants after acquisition of the proprietary rights as the grant was made prior to such omission of the said provision---The impugned order dated was passed in violation of mandatory provisions of S. 164 of the Sindh Land Revenue Act, 1967---Applicant was condemned unheard and the impugned order was passed behind his back, which violated his rights as to the fair trial thus perverse to the law---The applicant had an inalienable right of hearing and impugned order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice and doctrine of audi alterm partem was applicable to it; on that score alone the impugned order was not sustainable under the law---With regards the jurisdiction of the civil court, since the order of a revenue authority passed under its revision jurisdiction attained finality and no rights of appeal, second revision or review was provided under the law, the petitioner had no other remedy available under the law except to file a civil suit, therefore, embargo contained in S. 11 of the Sindh Revenue Jurisdiction Act, 1876 did not apply---Respondent No. 2 exercised jurisdiction not vested in it under the law and the Appellate Court failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it---The wrong committed by the respondent No. 2 was rectified by the civil court but the appellate court failed to comprehend the legal sustainability of the impugned order and authenticated the same which resulted in miscarriage of justice---Though the appellate court passed the impugned judgment and decree dated violating the mandatory provisions of R. 31 of O. XLI of C.P.C. without framing the points for determination, however the issue involved in the lis was a legal controversy and an elaborate discussion was made on the said legal controversy in the impugned judgment, therefore it was not in the fitness of things to remand this matter back for decision afresh on appeal, as the parties were under litigation since last about more than 22 years and mere non-mentioning of the points under issue would not otherwise render the judgment nullity when the specific question came under consideration while dealing with the appeal---Judgment and decree passed by the appellate court were set-aside and the revision petition was allowed, in circumstances.

Citation Name: 2025 CLC 1744 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case RASOOL BUX vs The PROVINCE OF SINDH through Secretary Revenue Department, Karachi S — 2025 CLC 1744 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 CLC