' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--This appeal by special leave is from the judgment, dated 29-1-1973 of the High Court of Sind and Baluchistan, Karachi, dismissing the appeal of the appellant from the order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner.
2. The dispute in this appeal relates to property bearing City Survey No,D/2654 situate at Nandu Hamal Lane, Hyderabad City. It was treated as evacuee property and transferred to respondent No,1. A permanent transfer deed was issued in his favour on 23-12-1962. More than four years later, that is, on 10-5-1967, the District Evacuee Trust Committee, Hyderabad, appellant, moved an application under section 4(3), Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, before Mr. Muhammad Azhar, who was vested with the powers of Chief Settlement Commissioner, for seeking a declaration that the said property was a Tikano and was as such .Evacuee Trust Property. In support of its application it relied entirely upon an extract from the City Survey Record.
Mr. Muhammad Azhar dismissed the application with the observations that the entries upon which the appellant was relying were vague, inconclusive and unsupported by any corroborative evidence and as such these were insufficient to show that the property in dispute belonged to a charitable or a religious trust. From the order of Mr. Muhammad Azhar, the appellant filed an appeal before the High Court as provided by section 4(4), Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act. The High Court dismissed the appeal with the observation that a mere entry in the City Survey Record was not sufficient to establish that the property was attached to a religious or charitable trust. The appellant has now come in appeal to this Court.
3. Leave to appeal was granted to consider the question whether merely upon the production of the extract from the record of rights or City Survey Record and in the absence of the deed of trust the property in question could be declared to be attached to a religious or charitable trust. After examining the record and hearing the learned counsel for the appellant we find that this question does not arise in this case. It will be noticed that the only evidence produced by the appellant in support of its case is the extract from the City Survey Record, but then that extract contains inconsistent entries. Although the property in dispute has been described therein as a Tikano, yet the origin of the title has been mentioned as inheritance. The appellant has at no stage offered any explanation how the origin of the title of a Tikano could be inheritance. In the circumstances the Chief Settlement Commissioner was justified in coming to the conclusion that the entries in the Surveys Record were inconclusive. We are, therefore, not prepared to interfere with his order which was affirmed by the High Court. This appeal is dismissed and the parties are left to bear their own costs.