1. HAMID ALI MIRZA, J.--These three civil petitions for leave to appeal are directed against the common judgment dated 11-12-1998 passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Sindh at Hyderabad, whereby Civil Revision Applications Nos.174, 175 and 176 of 1993 were dismissed, maintaining the judgments and decrees passed by the two Courts. Below. The brief facts of the case (C.P. No,160-K of 1999) are that one Allah Dino filed Suit No,78 of 1981 before the Senior Civil Judge, Dadu against the Government of Sindh and nine others for declaration that the orders passed by defendants Nos. 1, 4 and 5 in the said suit were illegal, void and mala fide and that the said Allah Dino plaintiff be declared to be owner of said suit property and that private defendants Nos.7 to 10 in suit had no right, title or interest in property. Suit No,50 of 1979 (C.P. No,161-K of 1999) was filed by Saleh son of Budho in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Dadu against Province of Sindh and 14 others for declaration that the said plaintiff was owner of land mentioned in suit and that orders passed by official defendants in suit were illegal, void, mala fide and without jurisdiction. Muhammad Mithal filed Suit No,137 of 1982 (C.P.No,162-K of 1999) in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Dadu for declaration that the plaintiffs in suit were rightful and lawful joint, owners of suit land as per shares stated and that orders passed by the official defendants in suit were without jurisdiction, invalid and of no legal consequence. Suits Nos. 78 of 1981 and 50 of 1979 were decreed on 21-1-1988, while Suit No,137 of 1982 filed by Muhammad Mithal was dismissed on 21-1-1988 by the Senior Civil Judge, Dadu. Appeal No,35 of 1988 preferred by Dhani Bux and 8 others against Saleh son of Budho and 6 others and Appeal No,36 of 1988 filed by Mooso son of Dhani Bux and 2 others against Allah Dino and 7 others before the Second Additional District Judge, Dadu against the judgment and decree passed in Suits Nos.50 of 1979 and 76 of 1981 were dismissed on 21-9-1993. Appeal No,34 of 1988 filed by Muhammad Mithal before the Second Additional District Judge against the judgment and decree passed in Suit No,137 of 1982 was also dismissed on 21-9-1993. Three Civil Revision Nos.174, 175 and 176 of 1993 were preferred against the judgments and decrees passed in three Civil Appeals Nos. 34 to 36 of 1988 before the Sindh High Court at Hyderabad which were also dismissed, as per impugned judgment, hence these petitions for leave to appeal. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record and proceedings of the case. The only point for our determination in these petitions is whether ' the land of the Barrage Department in dispute was ever fully paid by the grantee Takomal and T.O. Form was ever issued in his favour and whether in absence of fully paid-up grant and issuance of T.O. Form said grant of land could have converted into land having proprietary rights in favour of Hindu grantee. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to show us from the evidence or documents produced that land in dispute was ever fully paid-up by original Hindu grantee or at any time T.O.
2. Form was issued in favour of said grantee. The Barrage Mukhtiarkar who has brought the original record of land in dispute stated before us that unless all instalments of the grant of the land are paid by the grantee, no T.O. Form could be issued. The land could become Qabooli only when T.O.
3. Form is issued and thereafter necessary entries in the Village Form No, VII are to be made by the Taluka Mukhtiarkar of the area. He also stated that in the instant case no T.O. Form was ever issued in favour of the Hindu grantee as the grant of land remained unpaid. The learned Single Judge of the High Court at page 7 of the impugned judgment has observed:- "It is no one's case that the subject land was granted on permanent basis to Tekomal. The record does not show if the subject land had ever been treated as evacuee property through an overt and conscious act. It is a settled proposition of law that property which is not evacuee cannot be so treated despite mistaken allotment. Reference in this behalf can be made to judgments reported as Azam Ali and others v. The Custodian of Evacuee Property PLD 1968 Lahore 148 and Isab Khan v.
4. Muhammad Sher PLD 1975 Lahore 833. In order to claim treatment of property as evacuee, something more has to be shown." and at page 10, it has been observed:-- "In the present case, it is not shown if Settlement Authorities had ever treated the subject land as evacuee property through an overt act and conscious application of mind. The question which then arises is what right had been created in favour of Syed Zafar Hussain on account of allotment of subject land in his favour. Obviously, only the evacuee property could be allotted towards satisfaction of claim. The interest of Tekomal in the subject land was merely as a temporary grantee. He had never acquired any right in relation to the subject land on permanent basis.
5. Consequently, even if tie subject land is assumed to have been treated evacuee at any point of time, the unexpired or the balance interest of Tekomal, in the maximum, could have been so regulated and nothing more. The subject land, therefore, could not have, in any event, been treated evacuee. Moreover, no. Property could be treated evacuee after 1-1-1957. Reference in this behalf can be made to case of Isab Khan (supra) and Munira Bibi and others v. Member, B.O.R., Balochistan PLD 1978 Quetta 121. In the present case, nothing is shown nor even alleged about allotment muchless treatment of the subject land as evacuee property before 1-1-1957. The allotment of subject land in favour of Syed Zafar Hussian was thus invalid rather void. No party can claim any right on the basis of a void order pleading lapse of time."
6. The land in dispute was not fully paid up and no T.O. Form was even issued in favour of Hindu grantee therefore land remained no Kabuli consequently no property rights in land passed in favour of original grantee and was not available for its transfer to the claimant under the Settlement Scheme, therefore, its subsequent transfer by the claimant to the petitioner conferred no right, title or interest in their favour. Besides, three Courts below have given concurrent findings of fact and there being no misreading, non-reading of evidence or legal infirmity in the impugned judgment consequently no interference is called for in these petitions. We find no substance in these petitions, therefore, leave is refused and the petitions are dismissed.