' AMIR HANI MUSLIM, J.--- By this common judgment, we intend to dispose of all the above petitions as the issues raised therein are common. In all the petitions, the order, dated 23-10-2004 passed by the respondent No,2 has been impugned by the petitioners by which entries in Village Form VII in their favour were cancelled, inter alia, on the ground that entries kept in their favour were erroneous as the original leases in favour of the predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners were already cancelled by the then Deputy Commissioner, Karachi West, vide his order, dated 7-11-1998.
2. The facts as they appear from the pleadings of the parties, are that the petitioners claim that they are the successors-in-interest of the different allottees/lessees and on their application the different leases were transferred in their favour on 19-9-2002 by the then Mukhtiarkar, Gadap, Mr. Muhammad Salik Nukrich, and subsequent thereto, on the petitioners' approaching the said Mukhtiarkar, the mutation was effected in the record of the rights in their favour on 23-9-2002. The petitioners further pleaded that by an order dated 23-10-2002 the entries kept in their favour were cancelled by the respondent No,2, inter alia, on the ground that the original lessees/allottees, from whom the petitioners claim their interest were no more the tenants of the said lands as by virtue of the order dated 7-1-1998 passed by the then Deputy Commissioner, the lease hold rights were cancelled.
3. On issuance of the notices in these petitions, the Malir Development Project made an application in these proceedings praying therein to be joined as intervenor by pleading that the lands, which are subject-matter of the petitioners were owned and possessed by them.
4. A detailed counter-affidavit was filed by the Malir Development Project and on basis of the contents thereof, they were allowed to be joined as one of the respondents. During the proceedings, it was revealed that the original allottees, through whom the petitioners claim their right had approached this Court by filing different petitions viz. 535 to 543 of 1998 wherein they have impugned the orders of the then Deputy Commissioner, dated 7-1-1998 cancelling their leases. This Court by order dated 29-9-1999 allowed the said petitions, setting aside the order, dated 7-1-1998 of the Deputy Commissioner cancelling the leases with the direction to the Deputy Commissioner to pass fresh orders after hearing the parties. From the record, it appears that by order, dated 28-12-1999, the then Deputy Commissioner after hearing parties inclusive of the predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners had passed common order affirming the previous orders dated 7-1-1998 and cancelled the leases.
5. During the hearing of the petitions, in order to ascertain the true facts, we directed the personal appearance of the then Mukhtiarkar, Mr. Muhammad Salik Nukrich and the then D.D.O. Mr. Imdad Ali Owaisi, who had recommended the transfer of the lease hold rights in favour of the petitioners and had kept the entries in the Village Form VII in their favour. We further directed that the original record be produced before us. In compliance with our orders, the then Mukhtiarkar, Mr. Muhammad Salik Nukrich and the then D.D.O. Mr. Imdad Ali Owaisi appeared and placed before us the relevant record. We have examined the record and have found that the entries kept by Mr. Muhammad Salik Nukrich, the then Mukhtiarkar, were completely in violation of the Revenue Laws. We have further noticed that the entries in favour of the petitioners, were kept without looking into the corresponding entries available in the record, by which leases in favour of the predecessors-in- interest of the petitioners were already cancelled with red ink pursuant to the orders of the then Deputy Commissioner. This cancellation note A against the original entries was made by the concerned officer against such entries and in spite of such note at seven (7) different places of the corresponding entries in the Village Form VII, appearing at page 18 Entries Nos.637, 638, 639 at page No,19. Entry No,640 and at page 21 Entries Nos.646, 647 and 648, the said Mukhtiarkar had kept fresh entries in favour of the petitioners. What is most unfortunate was that the word " " used in the aforesaid note of cancellation was tampered with by substituting the word {{URDU TEXT}}" CV." with a different pen. After examining the record, we directed the then Mukhtiarkar Mr. Muhammad Salik Nukrich and the then D.D.O. Mr. Imdad Ali Owaisi to submit their detailed explanations.
6. The said D.D.O. In his explanation by way of counter-affidavit, has pleaded that he had recommended the transfer of the leases in favour of the petitioners pursuant to the recommendations made by the Mukhtiarkar, Gadap Town, Karachi, who had floated the summary which was signed by the Revenue Clerk, Assistant. Mukhtiarkar and the Mukhtiarkar himself. He, in his, counter-affidavit has further stated that the original Revenue Record is retained by the Supervising Tape'dar and the Mukhtiarkar on the basis of such record, has made recommendations for transfer of lease hold rights in favour of the petitioners. The D.D.O. Further pleaded in his affidavit that he, in his normal discharge of duties has made recommendations. He, however, has pleaded that on acquiring knowledge that the very leases recommended for transfer have already been cancelled by the orders, dated 7-1-1998, which orders were reaffirmed by the then Deputy Commissioner on 29-12-1999, he immediately ordered cancellation of the entries made in favour of the petitioners and also issued explanation letter to the Mukhtiarkar to show cause within seven days as to why disciplinary proceedings against him should not be initiated. He has filed copy of the letter, dated 26-10-2002 issued by the then D.O. And also the show-cause notice of the same date issued by the D.O. The record reveals that no disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the said Mukhtiarkar, which fact has also been confirmed by the said Mukhtiarkar.
7. As far as the explanation of the then Mukhtiarkar, Mr. Muhammad Salik Nukrich is concerned, he in his explanation/affidavit has stated that on the date when he kept the fresh entries in favour of the petitioners the original corresponding entries in favour of the original allottees did not have the cancellation note and he showed ignorance to the tampering of the Revenue Record as far as substitution of the word " " by " " was concerned. Prima facie, it is inconceivable that the original corresponding entries in favour of the allottees did not have the cancellation note against such entries on the day when entries in favour of the petitioners were kept by the Mukhtiarkar. It is also not conceivable that the Mukhtiarkar would keep the entries in the Revenue Record without verifying the corresponding entries. The Mukhtiarkar is personally liable for keeping fictitious entries in the Revenue Record to favour the petitioners and this liability cannot be shifted to a Tapedar or Supervising Tapedar alone.
8. The explanation of the then Mukhtiarkar, Gadap Town, Mr. Muhammad Salik Nukrich, in the present case was that the seven entries, which mention cancellation, did not appear on the day when the entries in favour of the petitioners were kept is not plausible. In these proceedings Mr. Muhammad Salik Nukrich had filed two affidavits. In the first affidavit, he did not take the stand that there was no cancellation note available in the original corresponding entries abut when he was confronted with the cancellation order, he filed a further affidavit and took a new plea that there was no cancellation note against the corresponding entries, which plea, ex facie, as an afterthought. In the given circumstances, it can be safely assumed that the substitution of word " cJ& " by word " " in the cancellation note against the corresponding entries reflecting the names of the original allottees, which contained initial with date, is sufficient to establish that the original corresponding entries in favour of the petitioners' predecessors-in-interest contained the cancellation note on the day when the entries in favour of the petitioners were kept by the Tapedars and Mukhtiarkar.
9. As far as the role of the then D.D.O. Is concerned, we feel that he has hardly played any role in tampering with the Revenue Record and his recommendations for transfer of leases in favour of the petitioners were in normal discharge of his duties. However, Mr. Muhammad Salik Nukrich, the then Mukhtiarkar Gadap Town, prima facie, along with the concerned Tapedars, was responsible in wilfully keeping fictitious entries in respect of the Government land in favour of the petitioners in Revenue Record by tampering with the record and we feel that there is sufficient material against the then Mukhtiarkar who is now promoted as D.D.O. (Revenue), Badin, and the Tapedars concerned to be prosecuted under Anti-Corruption Laws.
10. We, therefore, direct the Anti-Corruption Department to initiate criminal proceedings against Mr. Muhammad Salik Nukrich, the then Mukhtiarkar Gadap Town, Karachi, as well as against the concerned Tapedars of the beat by lodging an F.I.R. Under intimation to the M.I.T. Of this Court. We further direct the Senior Member, Board of Revenue or any other authority in this regard to immediately initiate disciplinary action against the then Mukhtiarkar, Gadap Town, Mr. Muhammad Salik Nukrich and the concerned Tapedars of the beat under intimation to the M.I.T. Of this Court. Till such time, the said Officers are exonerated by the Inquiry Officer in the proposed disciplinary proceedings as well as by a Court of law in the proposed criminal proceedings, they shall remain without any field posting. This order be immediately communicated to the Chief Secretary, Sindh, Advocate-General, Sindh, Senior Member, Board of Revenue, and the concerned Director, Provincial Anti-Corruption for information and compliance.
11. Before parting with the judgment, we may also observe that now a days under the rules a "Tapedar" or Supervising Tapedar which is a non-gazetted post, has been given- custody of the original Revenue Record, which he keeps in his custody, which can be easily tampered by him by keeping false and fictitious entries which is signed by the Mukhtiarkar. The law, does not make accountable such Tapedar as he is not shown as a custodian of the record. As a result, owing to the lacuna in the rules, the Tapedars in connivance with the Supervising Tapedars and Mukhtiarkars have played havoc with the Revenue Record and its sanctity has been completely eroded.
12. Under these circumstances, we would direct the Senior Member, Board of Revenue to order the concerned officials that the original Revenue Record shall be kept with the concerned Mukhtiarkar in future, and shall not be removed from his office by any of his subordinates. The Tapedars and/or Supervising Tapedars shall not be handed over the original Revenue Record. The entries in the record shall be kept and signed by the Supervising Tapedar along with the concerned Mukhtiarkar.
The D.D.O. (Revenue) shall verify such entry. The concerned Mukhtiarkar shall be made custodian of the record and the Tapedars of the beat shall have no access to the original record in future. These directives are issued in order to minimize tampering of the Revenue Record which has become a common feature of the day and high-ups in the Revenue Department have failed to take the required steps to check the forgeries in the record of rights resulting in usurpation of thousands of Acres of Government lands by land grabbers through the blessings of the subordinate revenue staff besides depriving the private owners from enjoying their own properties. The aforesaid directive shall be forthwith circulated by the Senior Member, Board of Revenue, to all concerned for compliance under 'intimation to the M.I.T. Of this Court. Non-compliance of any of the directives contained in this order would expose the concerned official to contempt proceedings.
13. These petitions for the aforesaid reasons are dismissed; however; it will be open to the petitioners to avail their remedy, if any, under the Revenue Law. We have retained the photocopies of the record to be kept on the Court file and all the original records (9 registers) have been handed over to E.D.O. (Revenue) Mr. Ali Akbar, which shall remain either in his custody or in the custody of any other Revenue Officer assigned by him not below the rank of D.D.O. Till proposed disciplinary action and criminal proceedings are concluded against the aforesaid Mukhtiarkar and Tapedars.