P L D 1999 Peshawar 57 (PLP)

Shahzad Mir son of Shah Mir and others have preferred the present revision petition against the Provincial Government N.‑W.F.P. through Collector, Kohat and private respondents Nos. 2 to 59 challenging the judgment and decree of the. learned District Judge, Kohat dated 8‑1‑1998 and judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge, Kohat dated 20‑5‑1992.

2. Facts of the case briefly stated are that Shahzad Mir and others filed a suit against the Government of N.‑W.F.P. through Collector and others (hereinafter to be referred as respondents) for a declaration to the effect that they were owners in possession of the suit property under Martial Law Regulation No. 115 and, therefore, the entries in the Revenue Record in respect of the defendants were incorrect and inoperative against their rights. Prayer for permanent injunction was also made. The suit was vehemently contested by the respondents at the trial Court and in the light of the evidence of the parties recorded, the trial Court dismissed the suit. Appeal preferred before the learned District Judge, Kohat also met the same fate. The petitioners have now preferred the present revision petition against the judgments and decrees of the two Courts below.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the record.

4. The record suggests that the petitioners were admittedly tenants‑at‑will under respondents 2 to 59, namely, the 'Kiyani Family' who were lessees of the suit property eversince the year 1854. Later on in the year 1963 the proprietary rights of 1499 acres of land out of the disputed property measuring 7818 acres was transferred to the respondents (2 to 59) i.e. Kiyani Family). The two Courts below have unanimously come to the conclusion that by virtue of M.L.R. No.115 the petitioners were not entitled to claim the ownership of the Government land as the same land had not been resumed. Out of the total land aforementioned 4446 acres of land was allotted to the Forest Department while 1872 acres remained in balance and was in possession of the tenants. This land was, however, extinguished from 'Kiyani Family' with effect from 10‑1‑1979. The property of the respondents has not been a subject of resumption by the Government under Martial Law Regulation No. 115, however, in case of its resumption it will revert to the Government, and the tenants cannot claim allotment.

5. In the grounds of this revision petition the petitioners have claimed the allotment of suit land to them on payment with a prayer that they were ready to pay the sale price or pay any consideration to the Government for allotment of the same. Realising the flaw/mistake in their case the petitioners moved an application on 1‑6‑1998 before this Court alongwith the present 'revision petition for the withdrawal of the suit with permission to file a fresh one on the same cause of action. The petitioners have further admitted in. the aforesaid application that the case of the petitioners would not attract the provisions of Martial Law Regulation No. 115 rather the proper remedy available to them was under the provisions of West Pakistan Land Reforms Regulation, 1959 and they were ready to pay the sale amount, if approved, by the concerned officials of the Government. Having considered this aspect of the case in the light of the aforementioned application I feel that the petitioners have realised that they have no case and they had brought a misconceived plaint before the trial Court.

6. An erroneous conclusion of law or fact can be corrected in appeal but it cannot be granted in a revision petition. In revision interference by the higher Courts is to be limited, to correct, the error, of jurisdiction or non‑compliance of any statutory provisions of law. The revisional Court, therefore, is not bound to interfere with the merits of the case. Besides, this Court cannot permit the petitioners to set up a case already abandoned and which they did not urge before the lower forum. With these observations I see no illegality or irregularity in the impugned orders of the Courts below. The revision petition, .therefore, fails and is dismissed in limine alongwith Civil Miscellaneous Application No.297 of 1998 and application dated 1‑6‑1998. C.M.A./M.A.K./336/P Petition dismissed.