MUHAMMAD IQBAL KA LHORO, J.---Concerned with this petition are the questions, discussed herein below, which have arisen out of the dispute between petitioner No,1, a registered Co- operative Housing Society known as Sindh Board of Revenue Employees Cooperative Housing Society Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Society), and respondent No,9/ Hyderabad Division Officers Co-operative Housing Society Limited over identification and location of the land granted to them by the Revenue Authorities Hyderabad in Deh Ganjo Takar Taluka Latifabad for residential purpose. The Society has filed the instant petition praying mainly for directions to the Taluka Mukhtiarkar, Latifabad to keep entry of layout plan in respect of land granted to it in the register of record of rights and on the basis of which mutation of allottees of its plots in the khata of the Society be entered.
2. The Society claims allotment of 10-00 acres land on 99 years lease in the said area (Deh Ganjo Takar) and its possession handed over to it vide memo of possession dated 6-3-2004. It also claims mutation of such area in the record of rights vide Entry No,250 dated 26.5.2004 and issuance of Form VII-B in its favour. It has further asserted that its building plan was approved by Hyderabad Development Authority (HDA) on 7.9.2006, and thereafter for the purpose of development and sale of plots, the Society was issued NOC.
3. The Society, however, got alarmed by a letter dated 9.12.2006 written to respondent No,8/Taluka Mukhtiarkar Latifabad Hyderabad by respondent No,6/Director Planning and Development Control HDA, Qasimabad Hyderabad, informing that HDA had received another proposal for approval of layout plan and issuance of NOC in respect of housing scheme titled as Hyderabad Division Officers Co-operative Housing Society, and during scrutiny of that proposal and Site visit the lands granted to the two Societies (the petitioner and respondent No,9) were found changed/overlapped on one another. A request, therefore, for clarifying the location of the lands granted to two Societies was sent through the said letter. It was replied that Deh Ganjo Takar, Taluka Latifabad was an unaddressed area ad measuring about 32000-00 acres out of which some land was granted in favour of various societies including the Society and respondent No,9 on the basis of Dasti Sketches, which had no legal sanctity. And in the said backdrop, the Land Utilization, Department Government of Sindh, Hyderabad through a letter dated 27.7.2005 desired for preparing a consolidated sketch of the site showing all the residential colonies in the area. That precipitated a meeting held between all the stake holders including representatives of both the Societies, resultantly a revised consolidated sketch of the site was prepared and it was duly signed by the officials concerned. Since the said plan was pending approval with the Land Utilization Department, Government of Sindh, Hyderabad, the layout plan of the Society was suspended vide letter dated 17.5.2007.
3A. Respondent No,8/ Mukhtiarkar Taluka Latifabad has filed the comments reiterating the above factual position and further stating that the subject land is part of 1755-00 acres leased out to Messrs Zeal Pak Cement Factory ("the Factory") for retrieving limestone there from. However, the Factory after completing its job from an area of 250-00 acres surrendered it, but soon thereafter made a request for lease of 150-00 acres out of the surrendered land (250-00 acres). But the Authority concerned granted to it only 75-00 acres and from the remaining land, 10-00 acres to the Society and 50-00 acres to respondent No, 9 were granted. The Factory being aggrieved by such arrangement filed a C.P. No,D-387 of 2006 for renewal of lease and C.P. No,D-96 of 2006 for demarcation of the area. Both the petitions were dismissed. Against which the Factory filed a C.P.
No,K-430 of 2007 before the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan making the petitioner and respondent No,9 as opponents therein. Lastly it is iterated by him that the approved 'plan of the Society had been suspended, and meanwhile since the matter also got sub-judice before the Honourable Supreme Court, the layout plan could not be entered into record of rights.
4. Respondent No,9 has also filed the written statement. Its case is that it was granted an area of 50-00 acres in an unassessed No,1 of Deh Ganjo Takar in the year 1988. Then, after completing all the legal formalities, its layout plan was approved by HDA. Survey of its land, its demarcation and measurement have also been carried out by the Settlements Surveys and Land Records, Sindh according to the terms and conditions of the NOC granted to it by the HDA, and two survey numbers, that are, S.Nos.30 and .31 in Deh Ganjo Takar have been formed out. These survey numbers have been brought in the permanent Deh Map of Ganjo Takar and such Ghat Wadh form has also been issued by the Directorate of Surveys and Land Records Sindh, Hyderabad.
Consequently, mutation in respect of the above survey numbers in the record of rights has been recorded in its favour through entry No,
9. Whereas 10-00 acres land claimed by the Society has never been surveyed or demarcated at the site, all the papers showing delivery of possession etc. Are maneuvered and obtained by the office bearers of the Society, who are also office bearers of All Sindh Revenue Employees Association, by exerting pressure upon the officers concerned. The Society has nowhere described the boundaries of its area of 10-00 acres and only after six years of filing this petition, the Society through the statement dated 14.11.2014 placed on record a copy of alleged sketch identifying location of their area which is false, fabricated and has been prepared by employing foul means.
5. We have considered the contentions of learned counsel and have perused the relevant material, including the case laws cited by them at the bar. It is obvious that grant of subject land to the Society, its possession and initially approval of its layout plan by HDA are not disputed by the official respondents. The controversy seemingly is between the petitioners and respondent No,9 over identification and location of their respective land and its possession. Petitioners' claim of location of their land is based on a Dasti sketch earmarking the land, and they claim its possession through a memo of possession dated 6.03.2004. Here it is their case that subsequently location of their land has been changed by the respondents with mala fide intention to favour respondent No,9. According to their counsel, the strip of the land granted to the Society has become highly valuable and it is the main reason to deprive the Society, comprising lower-grade employees, of its identified area and location. Petitioners urge that respondent No,9 is the body representing the high-grade officials, which has manipulated the relevant documents to grab their piece of the land. A perusal of record in hand reflects that the land granted to the Society was marked down by the Taluka Mukhtiarkar, Latifabad, in response to the proceedings filed by the Society before learned Ombudsman Sindh, for seeking possession of its allotted land and then purportedly, after such identification of the area, its possession was handed over to the Society through a Dasti sketch and then on the basis of that sketch its layout plan was approved and record of rights in its favour was mutated. The ambiguity, however, surfaced when HDA authorities received another layout plan for approval from respondent No,9, scrutiny of which led to discovery of the lands granted to the two societies overlapping one another. In view of that, HDA authorities sought a clarification of actual location of the Societies' land from the Taluka Mukhtiarkar Latifabad. A detailed reply was communicated by him in this regard, which evinces that the land was granted to several organizations including both the Societies on the basis of Dasti Sketch and it is also opined therein that such sketch has no legal sanctity. Further that as the whole area was un- assessed, the Land Utilization Department, Government of Sindh, Hyderabad asked for preparation of a consolidated sketch of the.Site showing all the residential colonies. In a meeting held in the aftermath, all the Officers concerned and the representatives of both the Societies worked out a revised consolidated sketch of the whole area identifying the location of each Society, which was duly processed and currently is said to be lying with the Land Utilization Department, Government of Sindh, Hyderabad for approval. On scrutiny that proposal shows shuffle of the locations of the lands granted to two societies as per Dasti sketch.
6. We have also perused the joint statement filed by Respondents Nos.2, 4 and 5, who are the relevant government Officials, indicating chronological history of the subject land right from the beginning. According to which, initially the land was leased out to the Factory by the Mineral Development Department Karachi for removal of limestone etc for Manufacturing cement. It, however, surrendered 250-00 acres after completing the job, but then made a request for grant of 150-00 acres out of that surrendered land for a housing scheme for its workers. The Factory was, however, granted only 75-00 acres for that purpose and from the remaining area of 175-00 acres many other organizations including the petitioners and respondent No,9 were accommodated with the land for their housing schemes. The whole area i.e, Deh Ganjo Takar, is unassessed areas which comprises about 32000-00 acres of the land. Thus apparently on the basis of only Dasti sketches the land granted to the petitioners and respondent No,9 was identified and its possession was handed over to them without approval of the revised consolidated sketch, which proposes to conclusivly determine location of each society. In absence of survey, demarcation etc of the given area, identification of the land in that area on the basis of Dasti sketch and its resultant possession handed over to two Societies cannot be considered a valid proof of their possession. Without defining boundaries of a certain piece of land, its measurement and demarcation in terms of the provisions of the Land Revenue Act, 1967 ("the Act"); a Dasti sketch cannot exactly indicate the location of a given piece of the land granted to any society. Hence such sketch cannot be treated to be valid and correctly identifying a given piece of the land and its possession. And since a Dasti sketch is, in view of foregoing discussion, considered to be bereft of any legal value, any identification of the land resulting from it or its possession cannot be said to have created any right or title in favour of either society at odds here. However, it is strange to note that during pendency of this petition and pending the approval of a revised consolidated sketch of the whole area, the layout plan of respondent No,9's land was, approved in the year 2013, and seemingly its land was surveyed, demarcated, and measured and two survey numbers viz. S.Nos.30 and 31 created. These survey numbers are said to have been brought in the permanent map of Deh Ganjo Takar and mutated in favour of respondent No,9. We will not consider it an exercise done by the Officials concerned under the influence of some bona fide intentions rather it appears to be precipitated by some extraneous considerations in conflict with the rule of propriety. It all appears to have been done in a hurried manner without waiting for the outcome of this petition, where the identification and location of the land disputed by both the societies is sub judice. It is not out of place to highlight here that respondent No,9 is claiming possession of the subject land through a memo of possession dated 29.09.2005 that is much before its land was seemingly surveyed, demarcated and measured. Preparing a document (Dasti sketch) showing location of a certain strip of the land given in possession of the respondent No,9 without following a proper procedure cannot be, ex- facie, considered to be of any legal sanctity. Nonetheless, we would not like to deeply examine this question, being mindful of the fact that it may prejudice either party in future in any subsequent litigation. However, we would like to observe that the dispute between the parties is over identification of the land, its exact location, and its possession that is claimed by both of them and this dispute is pending since filing of this petition in the year 2008. This controversy admittedly is factual in nature and requires evidence; it cannot be resolved through a jurisdiction under the Constitution. For resolution of this kind of dispute the parties could approach the Revenue Authorities under the Act, 1967, which amply deals with such situations. Of some reference could be its sections 44, 53 117 etc. Under the scheme of section 44 of the Act, 1967 a competent Revenue Officer can have an enquiry to ascertain who is the person best entitled to the property. And in such enquiry a right of opportunity of hearing and adducing evidence in support of their claims has got to be given to the parties to the dispute. Whereas in terms of section 53 of the Act, a person considering himself aggrieved by any entry in record of rights or in periodical record as to any right of which he is in possession, he can file a .Suit for declaration of his rights under Section 42 of Specific Relief Act, 1877. While section 117 of the Act provides that a Revenue Officer may, on the application of any person interested, define the limits of any estate, or of any holding, field or other portion
7. In presence of such adequate and efficacious remedy available to the petitioners, we are of the view that they cannot maintain the instant constitution petition. We, however, in the light, of above discussion while dismissing the instant petition would like to put the petitioners at liberty to avail proper remedy as referred to above within a period of 30 days from today. Meanwhile the parties are directed to maintain status quo over the subject site, which will automatically lapse after such period or on the day when the petitioners avail such remedy, whichever is earlier. An authority thus approached would be however independent to determine this question of status quo by exercising its jurisdiction as per law. Keeping in view the time consumed by the parties in the instant litigation, we would direct the Authority so approached to decide any such application as early as possible preferably within the period of 2 months of its submission.
8. In view of our discussion above, we dispose of the petition and all the pending applications alike.