2026 PLP 812 (YLR)

Ahmad Nadeem Arshad, J.

Through this Civil Revision filed under section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the petitioners have called in question the validity and legality of judgments and decrees of learned Courts below whereby suit of respondent No. 1 for declaration with permanent and mandatory injunction was decreed concurrently.

2. Tersely, necessary facts forming background of the proceedings in hand are that respondent No.1 instituted a suit for declaration along with permanent injunction against the petitioners by contending therein that he is owner of Plot No. 25 measuring 01 Kanal and 01 Marla situated in Habib Park Scheme, Mauza Niaz Baig, Multan Road, Lahore on the basis of relinquishment deed dated 16.11.2005 got registered in the office of Sub-Reigstrar, Iqbal Town, Lahore vide document No. 352, Bahi No. 1, Jild No. 1124 dated 17.01.2006 followed by mutation No. 59055 dated 15.03.2006. Contention of the respondent No.

1. Is that the suit property has never been legally acquired by the defendants/petitioners under the Provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, but the petitioners are occupying the same for which no compensation is being provided to him.

3. Contrarily, the petitioners/ defendants Nos. 1 to 3 contested the suit by filing written statement. They did not deny the material facts of the plaint, however, pleaded that Ammunition Depot under the control of Army authorities has been established in Mauza Thokhar Niaz Baig, Lahore since 1979 and the Federal Government, Ministry of Defence has imposed restriction on use of private land in the vicinity of Ammunition Depot Thokhar Niaz Baig vide Notification No. SRO/939(1)79, dated 02-10-1979 and SRO 886 (1)/95, dated 29-08-1995 due to security concerns. Without deying the ownership of respondent No. 1, they averred that Government of Pakistan/MEO Lahore Circle has paid compensation/rent of disputed land to the land owners through LAC Lahore upto 31-12-2019 including respondent No. 1 and other landowners vide letter No. ACQ/LHR/35-B/III/112, dated 11-01-2019. Learned Trial Court framed necessary issues out of the divergent pleadings of the parties and invited them to lead evidence in support of their rival contentions. After recording evidence of the parties pro and contra, oral as well as documentary, the suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 25.10.2023. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the learned Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 13.06.2024. Hence, this petition.

4. Heard. Record perused.

5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, it has been observed that respondent No. 1 is the exclusive and undisputed owner of the suit land situated at Moza Niaz Baig, Lahore. The said land has admittedly not been acquired by the Federal Government at any point in time. Despite this, severe restrictions have been imposed on the use of the property since 1979 by the Military Authorities due to its proximity to the Ammunition Depot. These restrictions include a complete prohibition on construction or alterations without prior written approval of the relevant Station Commander. Notably, these restrictions were imposed without any defined time limit and without compensation for the loss of use or income from the property.

6. The constitutional and legal right of a citizen to enjoy and derive benefit from their property is well protected under the law, and no State Authority can curtail such rights without legal justification or due compensation. Where a property is required for public use or security, the law provides a detailed and mandatory procedure for acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. In the instant case, the petitioner neither initiated any such legal process for acquisition nor offered reasonable compensation for depriving the respondent of the use of his property for decades.

7. Respondent No. 1, having been left with no remedy, approached the concerned authorities for possession or compensation and eventually filed a writ petition before this Court which was disposed of acknowledging that the land had not been acquired and held that the respondent No. 1 was entitled to rent for the restricted use of his property. The rent amount offered by the authorities was Rs. 600/- per month, which was manifestly disproportionate to the market value of the land. The respondent had substantiated the value of the land through the FBR valuation list dated 01.12.2021, fixing the value of residential property in Moza Niaz Baig at Rs. 8,50,000/- per marla. Based on the prevailing rental yield of 3.5% the fair rental value of the property comes to Rs. 52,063/- per month.

8. The learned Courts below, after thoroughly examining the evidence and applying the principle of rental yield, rightly assessed the fair monthly rent at Rs. 25,000/- with 10% annual increase, commencing from 01.07.2006 until either the shifting of the Ammunition Depot or formal acquisition of the land in accordance with law. The petitioners failed to rebut the evidence produced by the respondent or justify the meager rent being paid. No cogent evidence was led to contest the market value of the property or the applicable rental yield.

9. In the light of above, learned Courts below have rightly decreed the suit. The findings recorded by the learned Courts below are based on a proper appreciation of evidence and application of law, and no misreading or non-reading of evidence has been pointed out. Therefore, the learned Courts below have rightly decreed the suit of respondent No. 1, and no interference is warranted in their well-reasoned and lawful judgments.

10. This Court while exercising revisional powers has to keep in mind the mandate of section 115 of C.P.C. Powers of revision is neither unbridled nor unlimited. Before invoking such power, it should be seen as to whether order or judgment in the scrutiny is illegal, unlawful or suffers with material irregularities contemplated under section 115 of C.P.C. The petitioner has failed to bring his case within the four corners of pre-conditions hedged in section 115 of C.P.C, so, exercise of revisional jurisdiction in absence of any material illegality or irregularity would not be safe for the purpose of administration of justice.

11. Learned Law Officer appearing on behalf of the petitioners failed to point out any special circumstances warranting interference of this Court in the revisional jurisdiction.

12. For what has been discussed above, the instant Civil Revision is without any merits, hence, the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. MQ/F-20/L Revision dismissed.