2007 PLP 1647 (YLR)

SYED HAMID ALI SHAH, J.--This single order will dispose of Civil Revision No.1493 of 2005 titled "Muhammad Akbar Ali and others v. Abdul Ghafoor and others", Civil Revision No.1494 of 2005 titled "Muhammad Salman and others v. Abdul Ghafoor and others" and Civil Revision No.1495 of 2005 titled "Mst. Naziran Begum and others v. Abdul Ghafoor and others" as common questions of law and fact are involved in all these three petitions.

2. Backdrop of the controversy is that Umar Din (deceased) predecessor of the respondent/plaintiffs, became owner of disputed property known as P-200/567 in Street No.8, Mohallah Gurunankpura, Fasialabad, through order dated 25-9-1975 -of Deputy Settlement Commissioner Faisalabad. Predecessor of petitioners assailed the order of D.S.C. in Writ Petition No.1360-R of 1975, which was dismissed through order dated 14-5-1980. Resultantly, the respondents instituted the suit for possession against petitioners, besides the claim of compensation at rate of Rs.100 per month from 25-9-1975 to 31-5-1980 was claimed.

3. Petitioners while contesting the suit pleaded that they are in possession of suit-land since 1948, which was allotted to their predecessor by Deputy Settlement Commissioner on 6-9-1961, consequently PTO No.174416 was issued on 13-9-1961 and price thereof was deducted from compensation book. It was asserted that sale deeds and mortgage deeds are forged in respect of suit property and partition proceedings through settlement department are fabricated. Certain preliminary objections were raised; that Court has no , jurisdiction; that suit is not maintainable; that suit is barred by limitation; that plaintiff has no cause of action and that plaintiffs have no locus standi. Trial Court framed seven (7) issues at the first instance, subsequently Issues Nos.6, 6-B and 6-C were stuck after impleading defendants Nos.5 to

12. Learned trial Court, on conclusion of trial, decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 10-11-1993, granted one month's time to the petitioners, to vacate the suit property. The appeal .against the impugned judgment and decree, met the fate of dismissal through order dated 17-5-2005, hence this petition.

4. Learned counsel for petitioners has submitted that any evacuee property in the Province of Punjab, by virtue of section 3 of Displaced Persons Compensation and Rehabilitation Act, 1958 stood acquired by the Central Government free of all encumbrance. The house in question was transferred to the petitioners in the year 1961, on the basis of P.T.O., without any encumbrance. The rights, if any, of the respondents in the property in dispute arise under the mortgage, which has since been extinguished according to the above provision of law. Learned counsel then submitted that the respondents instituted the suit for possession regarding the Property bearing No.P-200, while the claim of the petitioners, relates to the property known as P.567. Predecessor of the respondents Abdul Ghafoor appeared as P. W .1 and stated that his claim pertains to the property known as Property No.P-200. Learned counsel has submitted that the suit of the respondents is barred, for the transfer order in favour of the petitioners' predecessor, has not so far been cancelled. Learned counsel referred to the case of Muhammad Rashid v. Abdus Salam (PLD 1991 SC 953), to contend that remedy available to respondents was to challenge P.T.O. in favour of petitioner, in appeal is hierarchy of Settlement Department. Learned counsel went on to argue that suit of the plaintiff is not competent and placed reliance on the cases of "Ch. Sir Muhammad Zafrullah Khan and 3 others v. The Custodian of Evacuee Property and 5 others" (PLD 1964 SC 865) and "Khurshid Anwar and 25others v. Muhammad Aslam and 2 others" (2001 MLD 757). Learned counsel then submitted that the order passed by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner dated 25-9-1975 is without notice to the petitioners, thus the order is void being violative of the principles of natural justice and carried no value in the eye of law. Learned counsel went on to argue that the suit was instituted after the elapse of 25 years while limitation provided by law is 12 years; thus the suit was barred by time but the learned Courts below have ignored this fact. Learned counsel contended that petitioners are in possession of land, since 1947 and the Courts have not given any weightage to the possession of the petitioners and the existence of PTO in. their favour. It was lastly contended that if the Court has applied law on the facts, which are incorrect, the application of law will be deemed as incorrect and to support this contention has referred to the maxim "ex facto jus oritur".

5. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has submitted that order dated 25-9-1975 was challenged by the petitioners through Writ Petition No.1360-R of 1980, where all the objections raised by the predecessor of the petitioners, including the objection that petitioners were not heard when order dated 25-9-1975 was passed, were dealt with by this Court and it was found that the impugned order of the Settlement Commissioner cannot be upset and the petitioners can only approach Settlement Commissioner for an alternate property, if available. Learned counsel then contended that the extent and validity of order of Deputy Custodian dated 24-10-1960 and Additional Custodian dated 21-10-1962 came up for consideration before this Court in Civil Revision Nos.104 of 1997, 105 of 1997 and 106 of 1997. It was observed by Court that orders referred above of Custodian and Additional Custodian were referred and mentioned in the order of Deputy Settlement Commissioner dated 25-9-1975. The order of Deputy Settlement Commissioner was passed after considering the orders dated 24-10-1960 and 21-10-1962. The order of Deputy Settlement Commissioner was upheld by in Writ Petition No.1360-R of 1975. The order dated 14-5-1980 of this Court was maintained by the Honourable Supreme Court. The issue attained finality, therefore, the claim of the petitioners, if any, on the basis of these documents has been laid to rest in these proceedings. Learned counsel has submitted that the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, which has attained finality, is binding and the Courts below have rightly passed the impugned judgments and decrees which are not exceptionable. Learned counsel has submitted that the order of allotment by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner dated 25-9-1975 attained finality on 14-5-1980, when the writ petition assailing the said order was dismissed by this Court. The petitioners soon after the dismissal of the writ petition filed a suit, which is within the period of limitation.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the record.

7. The property in dispute bears number P.200/567 which fact is reflected from the written statement filed by the petitioners. There is nothing on record to prove that P.200 and P.567 are two distinct properties. The property was demarcated in the presence of the revenue staff. The order of allotment dated 25-9-1975 was challenged in Writ Petition No.1360-R of1975 which was dismissed vide order dated 14-9-1980. Order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner which was upheld by this Court, was maintained by the august Supreme Court. The order of Deputy Settlement Commissioner attained finality and the questions raised in this petition were earlier agitated and urged before this Court, in the said proceedings. The questions raised in these petitions, again came up for consideration in C.Rs. Nos.104, 105 and 106 of 1997 before this Court. It was held by the Court that cloud on the title of the predecessor-in-interest of respondents was removed through order of Deputy Settlement Commissioner dated 25-9-1975, which was upheld by the High Court in Writ Petition No.1360-R of 1975. Orders passed in revision petitions was assailed in Civil Petition Nos.1962, 1963 and 1964-L of 2000 before the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan. The questions which have since been determined and the order of allotment of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner in favour of the respondents' predecessor has attained finality, therefore, the concurrent findings of Courts below granting decree of possession to the respondents is not open to any exception in the revisional jurisdiction, when no instance of misreading and non-reading of evidence, in the concurrent findings of the Courts below is seen.

8. Adverting to the question of limitation. The allotment in favour of the respondents' predecessor attained finality on 15-4-1980 when Writ Petition No.1360 of 1975 was dismissed wherein the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner was upheld. The petitioners filed a suit on 18-6-1980 without wasting of any time. The period of limitation started running in favour of respondents when order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner attained finality i.e. on dismissal of Writ Petition No.1360-R of 1975. The suit was instituted within the period of limitation and rightly held so by the learned Courts below.

9. For the foregoing, concurrent findings of the Courts below do not call for any interference as no illegality and infirmity is seen in the impugned judgments. The petition has no force and same is accordingly dismissed, with no order as to costs. F.B./M-54/L Petition dismissed.