1981 PLP 748 (SCMR)

NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.

This petition is directed against the; order of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court dated 23rd April, 1974 passed in Writ Petition No. 3978 of 1978 dismissing the, aforesaid writ petition. The case of the petitioner was that he was In cultivating possession of the land measuring 44 kanals situated in village Mai Roshan Dagar, Tebsil Bhakkar, District Mianwali. This land was alienated by one Gul Sher In favour of respondent No.1. The petitioner claiming to be the tenant of the land in question files a suit for re-emption basing his superior right under M.L.R.

115. He also submitted an application to the effect that no change in the Khasra Girdawari qua the cultivation column be made during the pendency of the suit. Subsequently, on ac. count of the amendment in section 25 of Martial Law Regulation No. 115 the case was transferred to the Collector. Respondent No. 1 filed application before him for the correction of the Khasra Girdawari and for deletion of the petitioner's name and inclusion of his name therein. The Field Kanungo, in connection with his application, reported on 6th. December, 1975 that the petitioner was in cultivating possession of the land in dispute. The report, however, was not approved of by the Colony Naib-Tehsildar and the Collector (S. O) by his order dated 16th December, 1976 decided that the entries be made in Khasra Girdawari in favour of respondent No. I as prayed by him. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner moved the Commissioner, Sargodha Division, Sargodha, by an appeal, who accepted it by his order dated 3rd May, 1977 and remanded the case for spot inspection and decision by the Collector/Settlement Officer, after due inquiry in the matter. The Settlement Officer examined the matter and found in his order dated 15th March, 1978 that the petitioner was not in possession of the disputed land as tenant. On appeal, the Commissioner upheld the order of the Settlement Officer and the revision petition before the Member Board of Revenue filed by the petitioner also failed. The petitioner thereupon filed a writ petition (W. P. No. 3978/78) but the learned Judge in the High Court also found after a careful considera tion of the matter that the petitioner was not in cultivating possession of the land during the period in question and, therefore, dismissed the writ petition. Malik Amjad Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner, attempted to argue that the order of the revenue authorities was based on mis reading of the evidence on record and, therefore, was liable to be interfered with in the writ jurisdiction and that the learned Judge in the High Court has erred is not interfering with the said orders. We have gone through the documents which according to the learned counsel have been misread but we do not agree with him that they have been misread. In fact, the learned Judge in the High Court has carefully considered all the objections pertaining to the argument that the documents were misread and rightly repelled them. Hence they is no force in the above plea. The questions agitated are disputed questions of fact and no question of legal or public importance has been raised before us and we do not consider this case to be a fit one for interference. . This petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed hereby. Petition dismissed,