SARDAR MUHAMMAD ASLAM, J.- This Regular Second Appeal has been directed against the judgment dated 13.1.2000 passed by the learned District Judge, Attock whereby he while accepting the appeal of the respondent dismissed the suit of the appellant.
2. The appellant-plaintiff filed a suit for possession claiming allotment in her favour of the suit land on 25.3.1960. Possession was delivered to her. It was alleged in the plaint that the defendant forcibly dispossessed her claiming to have purchased the land from a refugee Taffazul Ali against consideration to whom this land was allotted. The plaint further contained an averment that the suit property has not been allotted to any person and, if, there is any allotment the same was ineffective qua her rights.
3. The defendant-respondent contested the suit by filing their written statement. They claimed that the suit land was transferred to one Taffazal Ali on 1.3.1957 vide RLII No. 107. He sold the suit land in their favour against the consideration of Rs.10,000/- through a registered sale-deed dated 28.2.1964. Controversial pleas raised in the pleadings were put into issues. Both the parties produced oral and documentary evidence respectively. The suit was decreed by the learned Trial Court. An appeal was preferred by the defendant which was accepted on 13.1.1981 by the then learned District Judge, Attock resulting into dismissal of the suit. The plaintiff field an appeal before this Court which was allowed vide judgment dated 4.10.1999 remanding the case for fresh decision to the Appellate Court directing to frame an additional issue, determining the nature of the disputed land whether, urban or rural, at the time of partition of the country after recording of further evidence on the issue. The direction so given in the remand order gave rise to the framing of an issue which is issue No. 6-A:- 6-A. Whether the disputed land was urban or rural at the time of country's partition or that of the allotment in favour of the predecessors-ininterest of defendant-appellant? 0 P Parties
4. The parties were given an opportunity to produce evidence on this issue. Both the sides produced their respective evidence in support of their plea. The learned District Judge vide his judgment dated 13.1.2000 allowed the appeal and setting aside the judgment of the learned Trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff which judgment is being assailed herein.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the sole question requiring resolution is whether the suit land was rural or urban. If it is held to be a urban, then the allotment of Taffazul Ali is without jurisdiction and appeal is to be allowed. In case it is found that it is rural then the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed. Reference has been made to the special Jamabandi and Notifications issued by the Municipal Committee, Hassanabdal.
6. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent-defendant contended that the controversy is to be resolved with reference to the nature of the land obtaining at the time of the partition.
7. Learned counsel for the parties were heard at length. The evidence and the record was also perused with their able assistance.
8. Rural agricultural land shall mean such a land as is defined in clause (i) of Part-I, of the West Pakistan Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme situated out side the limits of a corporation a Municipal Corporation, a notified area committee a Small town Area committee a town area committee.
Sanitary committee and Cantonment Board as these limits existed on 15th of August, 1947. The Urban land was defined as the land other than the Rural agricultural land as mentioned above.
9. Special Jamabandi for the year 1946-47 has been placed on record as Ex.D-5 Khasra No. 3809/1865 is shown as Maira in classification which means that it was agricultural in nature situated in Hassanabdal revenue estate.
10. Ex.R-1 is a Certificate issued by the Chief Officer. Municipal Committee, Hassanabdal. It evidences the suit property falling within the limits of the Municipality in accordance with the Notification dated 24.4.1944. The Chief Officer has appeared as RW-1. He deposed that he could not say with certitude as to whether Khasra number in dispute is located within the limits of Municipal Committee. He admits letter Exh.A-1 written to Muhammad Ayub wherein he expressed lack of certainty about the location of this Khasra number.
11. The whole revenue estate of Hassan Abdaal was later on declared as urban area by Notification dated 10.1.1975. The documentary evidence produced by the plaintiff is no way strengthening its case. The extension Map of the Municipal Committee, Hassan Abdaal has been exhibited as R.2.
There are two notifications in respect of the boundary of the Town Committee, the first one (Exh.R- 3) of 24th of April, 1944 whereby, the limits of the small town of Hassan Abdaal was fixed Exh.R-4 was the notification dated 12th of January, 1948. Certain areas lying in-between the existing boundary and the boundary proposed in the schedule was included in the Town Committee Exh.R- 5 is the copy of Aks Shajra for the year 1924-25. On 14.7.1947, whether Khasra No. 1865 was located in the revenue estate Hassan Abdaal, Exh.R-2, provides no answer as it was extension map. Exh.R-3 is the only document which fixes the limits of Hassanabdaal. The disputed property is not included in the notification Exh.R-4 and Exh.A-2 are the notifications which were issued after 14.7.1947 and thus have no bearing on the point in issue.
12. Heavy onus lay on the plaintiff to prove that the suit land was urban property falling within the limits of Town Committee, Hassan Abdaal. The evidence produced by them does not support their plea. In the absence whereof reliance is placed on Special Jamabandi for the year 194647, which records the classification of land as Maira in nature falling within the limits of revenue estate Hassan Abdaal.
13. The land was rightly allotted to Tafazzul Ali through RL-II, who transferred the same to respondents by way of registered sale-deed.
14. In view of the above, this regular second appeal is without any substance and accordingly is dismissed.
R.S.A. Dismissed.