2021 PLP 1985 (YLR)

MALIK HAQ NAWAZ, C.J.

Petitioners have preferred this civil revision petition against the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge Skardu, whereby the learned appellate Court has dismissed the appeal bearing C.F.A. No.11/2014 on 30-9-2014 and thereby confirmed the judgment and decree of learned Civil Judge 1st Class Skardu passed in Civil Suit No.18/2008 on 15-5-2014 in favour of the plaintiffs against the defendants.

2. Facts of the case in hand has been elucidated by the learned Additional District Judge in para-2 of his judgment passed in C.F.A. No.11/ 2014, the same are reproduced below:-- "that late plaintiff/respondent (herein after called the plaintiff/ plaintiffs filed Civil Suit bearing No.18/2008 against the appellants/ respondents Nos. 2 to 5/ defendants (herein after called the defendants) for declaration and recovery of possession of suit land mentioned in heading/schedule A of the plaint on the grounds that suit land was allotted in favour of plaintiff vide office bearing No-DK-4(2)/89 of Collector Baltistan dated 12th December, 1989 on the order/ directive of Minister of Kashmir and Northern Areas affairs dated 8th July, 1989 against consideration of 100/- per kanal. The said allotment order was later on cancelled by the Revenue Commissioner Northern Areas vide office order bearing No-Rev-11/84 dated 12th August 1990 and order of Collector DK-4(2)/90 dated 27th August 1990, being aggrieved by the said orders plaintiff challenged the impugned orders before Wafaqi Mohtasib (Federal Ombudsman), who has cancelled the impugned orders by accepting the petition of plaintiff and incompliance of the said order the revenue authorities restored the allotment and possession thereof was also handed over to him. Plaintiff erected nominal boundary wall thereon and went to Rawalpindi and suit property remained as it was and this year defendant i.e. Akberia Welfare Trust took the possession of the suit land on the basis of sale and claim to be the owner thereof, hence, filed the instant suit".

3. On the other hand present petitioners/defendants by way of filing their written statement contested the suit and denied the averments of the plaint on many legal and factual grounds by asserting that Sundus Maidan is pasture of the petitioners/ defendants and they are in possession of the suit land since long. Further maintained that in the year 1989, 440 kanal land were allotted them in the light of decision of Review Board. The Minister of KA & NA has now power to allot any land, therefore, the order of the Minister was rightly cancelled by the competent authority. They prayed for dismissal of the suit being not maintainable. Defendants Nos. 2 to 5 by filing of their amended written statement have conceded the claim/contention of the plaintiff. It is evident from judgment/ decree of the learned Additional District Judge Skardu that defendants namely Akberia Welfare Trust have patched up the matter with defendants Ahlian-e-Sundus in the trial Court, hence, the name of Akberia Welfare Trust have been deleted/strucked off from the array of defendants.

4. The learned trial Court from the divergent pleadings of the present have framed 19 issues including issue of relief and after pro and contra evidence of the parties decreed the suit of the plaintiffs and declared the plaintiff as owner of the suit land in the light of allotment order. Being dis-content with the said judgment/ decree present petitioners/defendants have preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge Skardu and on 03-6-2014 the learned District Judge Skardu assigned the same to the learned Additional District Judge Skardu for disposal. The learned Additional District Judge Skardu after registering the appeal and procuring attendance of the parties heard arguments of the parties and have dismissed the appeal of the present petitioners/ defendants and maintained the judgment/ decree of the learned trial court. Being dis-satisfied with the said judgment/decree of the learned Additional District Judge Skardu, petitioners have preferred the instant civil revision petition before this Court.

5. In support of his contention plaintiff has recorded his statement through attorney and examined three witnesses and relied on documentary evidence Exh.P.1 to Exh.P-3, while defendants/present petitioners have recorded their statement through representative and produced three witnesses and relied on documentary evidence Exh.D-2/1 to Exh.D-2/10 in support of their written statement.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the judgment/ decree of the learned Additional District Judge Skardu is against the law and norms of justice, hence not maintainable and liable to be set aside. He further contended that plaintiff is claiming the suit land which is situated in between the two villages i.e. Sukhamedan and Sundus on the basis of allotment order and said villages are separated from each other therefore, the allotment of the land in suit is suspicious one and is not executable and the judgment/decree of both the Court are not in the light of law applicable to the matter in hand. He further submitted that the petitioners are bona fide residents of mouza Sundus and the competent authority have allotted 440 kanals of State/Khalisa land in their favour and in this regard mutations bearing Nos. 1348, 1349 and 1350 have been attested in the year 1981. He further submitted that the Minister of KA & NA Division has no powers to allot Khalisa land to any person in existence of the Nautore rules, hence, the judgments/ decrees of both the Courts are not maintainable. He further submitted that ban on the allotments of land are imposed since 1986, therefore, allotment order is liable to be cancelled. He further submitted that the competent authorities have cancelled the allotment order of the suit land, therefore, plaintiffs have no right over the suit land. He further submitted that the said cancellation order has been set aside by the Wafaqi Muhtasib, which is un-heard and against the law, hence the order of the Wafaqi Muhtahsib is not tenable. Lastly, he argued that the judgments/ decrees of both the Court below are result of mis-reading, non-reading and mis-appreciation of evidence and materials available on file, therefore, the judgments/ decrees of both the Court may be set aside to meet the ends of justice.

7. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 strongly opposed the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners and defended the judgments/ decrees of both the Courts by asserting that the respondents/ plaintiffs are exclusive owners of the sit land on the basis of allotment order issued in their favour by the competent authority. He further submitted that the said order was cancelled by the Revenue authorities and the plaintiffs have filed application before the Wafaqi Muhtasib and the learned Wafaqi Muhtasib has set aside the cancellation order of the revenue authorities and on the basis of decision of the Wafaqi Muhtasib the allotment order has been restored and the revenue authorties have handed over possession of the suit land, prepared revenue documents in favour of plaintiff He further submitted that plaintiffs has constructed boundary wall around the sill land and also made improvements on it. He further submitted that the judgments/ decrees of both the Courts below are result of correct appreciation of documents and materials available on file, therefore, liable to be maintained in dismissal of the petition in hand.

8. I have heard arguments of the learned 'counsel for the parties and have minutely gone through the record with their able assistance.

9. From perusal of record it reveals that plaintiff/ respondent set No.1 has filed a civil suit before the learned trial Court for declaration and recovery of possession of the suit land mentioned in the head note of the plaint on the basis of allotment order issued by the revenue authorities in favour of the plaintiff on the order / directives of Minister of Kashmir and Northern Areas affairs Division dated 08-07-1989 against consideration of Rs.100/- per kanal, vide office order bearing No-DK-4(2)/89 of Collector Baltistan dated 12-12-1989. The said allotment order was later on cancelled by the Revenue Commissioner Northern Areas vide office order No.Rev-11/ 89 dated 12-08-1990. Plaintiff being aggrieved from the said cancellation order of the revenue authorities preferred an application before Wafaqi Muhtasib and the Wafaqi Muhtasib has set aside the cancellation order of the revenue authorities and on the direction of the Wafaq Muhtasib the revenue authorities have restored the allotment order of the plaintiff prepared revenue documents in favour of the plaintiff and handed over possession of the suit land. It is also evident from the record and statement of the PWs that the plaintiff has constructed boundary wall around the suit land and is in possession of the suit land. It is admitted position in the case in hand that the suit land is Khalisa Sarkar/State land and the respondents/defendant set No.2 (provincial Government etc.) being the custodians of the State/ Khalisa Sarkar land have filed admissional written statement in favour of the plaintiff and also admitted the allotment order in favour of the plaintiff. Plaintiff has proved his case by producing cogent reliable oral as well as documentary evidence and petitioners have failed to rebut the same by producing reliable evidence and also failed to substantiate the grounds reflected in the petition in hand.

10. Both learned Courts below have passed the impugned judgments/decrees after proper appreciation of the material available on the record. Even otherwise, revisional jurisdiction is meant for correction of jurisdictional error and material illegalities or irregularities and in absence thereof the concurrent findings cannot be interfered with. No mis-reading, non-reading or unlawful exercise of jurisdiction could be pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners to interfere with the concurrent findings of both the Courts below.

11. The up shot of the above discussion is that the instant revision petition being meritless, is hereby dismissed by upholding the judgments/ decrees passed by both the Courts below. File be consigned to record after due completion. SA/155/GB Petition dismissed.