1998 PLP 1209 (MLD)

2. Initially the local rights-holders were entitled to receive 40 % share as royalty in respect of their forests. This was subsequently increased to 60 % . In other words, the Provincial Government became the owner of forests, situated in Swat/Shangla; whereas the Forest Department was to retain its possession. The Forest Development Corporation (F.D.C.) accordingly executed agreements with the concerned local rights-holders. The Forest Department was to then mark the trees, according to the working plan, and hand it over to the F.D. C. it was the F.D. C. which fell/cut trees. Thereafter, the timber was converted in the shape of logs etc. and carried to the nearest road side. From the road side the timber was transported to sale Depots through carriage contractors. At the depots, the F.D.C. sold/auctioned the timber with the consent of the representative of the local rights-holders. From the sale proceeds the F.D.C., in addition to their invested amount/expenditure, received 20% profit and the balance amount was to be deposited with the Forest Department. The Forest Department retained 40 % as share/dues of the Government and transmitted the remaining 60% to the concerned District Administration to be paid to he local rights-holders.

3. The plaintiffs/respondents Nos. 1 to 14, being the local rights-holders in forest Compartments Nos. 13, 14 and 15, Block East Lelonai, Alpuri Forest Division, District Shangla, with the above mentioned back-ground, instituted a civil suit in the Court of Mr. Muhammad Tariq, Senior Civil Judge/Ala Illaqa Qazi, District Swat, against the defendants, including the petitioner, and prayed that a decree for a declaration to the effect that defendant No. 1 (petitioner) was only entitled to receive 1/5th share from the proceeds of Compartments Nos. 13, 14 and 15, East Lelonai out of the royalty, which was to be paid to the plaintiffs, in accordance with agreements dated 16-8-1987/3-4-1990/6-5 1993/10-5-1993, compromise deed dated 18-5-1993 and the Court decree dated 20-5-1993 and that out of 1/5th share, to be received by defendant No. 1 (petitioner) he was bound to make payment to the plaintiffs (respondents Nos. 1 to 14) regarding the extracted timber at the rates, detailed in the heading of the plaint. The plaintiffs (respondents Nos. 1 to 14) further prayed for mandatory injunction against defendants Nos. 2 to 10, and in the alternative, prayed for the cancellation of the agreements and rendition of accounts.

4. The suit was contested by defendant No. 1 (petitioner), defendants Nos. 2 to 5 and 7 to 10 who filed their respective written statements wherein quite a few legal as well as factual objections were raised.

5. The pleadings of the parties were reduced to the following issues:--

6. After recording the evidence of the contesting parties, which they wished to produce, and hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the Senior Civil Judge granted a decree as prayed for to plaintiffs/respondents Nos. 1 to 14.

7. Aggrieved, defendant No. 1/petitioner challenged the said verdict before the District Judge/Zaila Qazi namely Mr. Mukhtar Ahmad Khan, who by his judgment dated 10-7-1997 dismissed the appeal. Hence this revision petition.

8. Mr. Abdul Halim Khan Sani, Advocate learned counsel for the petitioner present and heard. I have also gone through the record of the case carefully.

9. It may be stated at the out-set that the District Judge/Zila Qazi before dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner had also summoned the Divisional Forest Officer, Alpuri, Haji Muhammad Shoaib Khan, for clarifications and had examined him on oath as C.W.1. The said Court witness had supported the case of the plaintiffs/respondents Nos. l to

14. It was for this reason that the District Judge while dismissing the appeal had remarked at pages Nos. 5 and 6 of the impugned judgment, as under:--

10. The learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to convince me, form the record, that the judgment impugned is either arbitrary/perverse or that it is a result of non-reading/misreading of evidence. I am, therefore, of the view that the same cannot/should not be set aside by this Court in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Needless to mention that the lower Appellate Court has discussed/appreciated the evidence produced, in detail, and has given valid reasons for its conclusion. The concurrent findings of facts by the lower forums cannot be interfered with. This revision petition does not merit consideration and is dismissed in limine. A.A./2216/P Revision dismissed.