1989 SCMR 1664 (PLP)

JAVID IQBAL, J.‑‑This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court Multan Bench, Multan whereby the revision of the petitioners was dismissed. Briefly the facts are that a suit was filed by the petitioners for declaration to the effect that they were the owners in possession of the suit land located in Khasra No. 480 of village Tarf Mubarak Aweval, Tehsil and District Multan and ' that the respondent had no right or interest therein. A permanant injunction to restrain the respondent permanently from ejecting the petitioners from the said land was also sought. The position in this case was that the Irrigation Department had constructed a water course (i.e. Rajba) which was later abandoned for about six years prior to the filing of the suit by the petitioners. The petitioners got possession of the said land on which Rajba flowed earlier and completed some constructions thereon claiming to be its owners on the ground that the said land had belonged to their forefathers but the Irrigation Department constructed water course thereon without acquiring the same or paying any compensation. Thus when the water course was abandoned they regained possession thereof as owners. The suit was resisted by the respondent Government. The trial Court decreed the suit but on appeal of the respondent Government the decree of the trial Court was set aside and‑the suit was dismissed. Subsequently the revision petition was likewise dismissed. Hence the present petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted before us that the finding of the appellate Court to the effect that Khasra numbers of the water course as given in the Jamabandi Ex. P 14 were different from the Khasra numbers of the suit land according to the revenue record was not correct and therefore the appellate Court arrived at an erroneous conclusion. We note that the trial Court framed an issue to the effect that whether the plaintiff (petitioners) is owner in possession of the suit property and then while discussing this issue arrived at the conclusion that the petitioners were owners in the Mouza of the suit land since their fore‑fathers and that the Revenue record indicated that the water course was Mahazi Malikan. However the learned trial Court failed to give a finding to the effect that the petitioners were owners in possession of the suit property. On the other hand the appellate Court considered this very issue i.e. Issue No. 5 and took the trouble of going through the entire evidence produced by the parties in arriving at the conclusion that the Civil Judge had presumed that the suit land was a part of the water course which was constructed by the Irrigation Department on the land of private persons without paying any compensation to the owners, but it failed to give a finding as to whether the suit land whereupon the water course was constructed by the Canal Department belonged to or was owned by the petitioners thus the apellate Court was correct in arriving at the conclusion that the evidence produced by the petitioners did not prove that the suit land situate in Khasra No. 480 was a part of the disputed land. These findings had been upheld by the revisional Court on the ground that in view of the evidence on record the Provincial Government was also the owner in the said village and in the Jamabandi the suit land had been recorded under the ownership of the Provincial Government, and consequently in view of the evidence on record the petitioners could not claim ownership of the land in dispute. Since the questions of fact had been decided against the petitioners no case is made out for interference. The petition is therefore dismissed. M.A.K./M‑915/S???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.