1. The present revision has been filed by the original plaintiff against the judgment dated 23-1-1981, passed by the District Judge, Thatta in Civil Appeal No.18 of 1980 by which the appeal was dismissed and he affirmed the Judgment and decree dated 16-9-1980 of the Senior Civil Judge, Thatta.
2. The facts leading to the filing of the above revision are that the Petitioner had filed Suit No.15 of 1978 for declaration and injunction. It is the case of the petitioner that ho was granted 83.16 acres of land in Deh Khanto, Taluka Jati, District Thatta under the mechanized forming scheme by the Colonization Officer Ghulam Mohammad Barrage, Hyderabad. He had paid Rs.2,085 on 21-12-1961 as part instalment and then he was inducted into possession. Thereafter he made substantial investments on the development of this land. However the Colonization Officer subsequently cancelled this land on 1-7-1972 without any notice to him and it was also allotted to the respondents 5 to 7. He made proceedings before Revenue Authorities without any success. Hence, this suit.
3. The respondents 1 to 4 did not contest the suit. The respondents 5 to 7 resisted the suit. The respondents 5 to 7 pleaded that the land was rightly cancelled as the petitioner had violated the terms of grant and had deserted the land after selling it out to Pehalwan, the attorney of the petitioner. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed appropriate issues. The trial Court decided issue No.1 in the affirmative, issue No.2's first part in affirmative and issue No.3 in the negative. The suit was dismissed. The Petitioner went in appeal before the District Judge. The learned District Judge dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Judgment and decree of the trial Court as stated hereinabove.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. Mr. G. M. Qureshi raised two contentions:
(1) that the Revenue Officer was incompetent to cancel the land and (2) the cancellation is illegal because it was cancelled without any notice to the petitioner. On the other hand Mr. Arif submitted that the petitioner had executed the terms of grant described by the Revenue Officer. The cancellation is legal as the same was cancelled after due notice to the petitioner.
5. I have perused the record. Both the Courts below found that the cancellation under Ext.40 is legal and valid and was cancelled by the Revenue Officer who was the competent authority to cancel the grant. They also found that the cancellation order Ext.40 was passed after due notice to the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show to me that the finding is perverse or stands vitiated. In this situation a finding of fact arrived at by the courts below is binding in revision Petition.
6. The learned counsel for the respective parties have taken me through the evidence and the judgments of courts below. The learned counsel for the petitioner had not drawn my attention to any of the reasons given by the trial Court having not been considered by the lower appellate Court. The courts below, when they have categorically held that the cancellation order Ext.40 was valid and legal and was passed by competent authority after due notice to the g petitioner on a most proper appraisal of the same, came to the categorical finding. This finding that the cancellation order (Ext.40) was passed after due notice by the petitioner is a finding of pure question of fact and it can be interfered with only if it was based upon misreading or even misappreciation of the documentary evidence on record. In my opinion the learned courts below have neither misread any documentary evidence nor has mis-construed the same in my opinion, the reasons given by the Courts below are very cogent and convincing and in my opinion the findings arrived at by the courts below cannot be said to be unreasonable or perverse.
7. The above are the reasons for the short order dated 17-1-1988 passed on conclusion of the arguments.
8. M.Y.H./A-541/K