1989 PLP 788 (SCMR)

JAVID IQBAL, J.‑‑This petition for leave to appeal is directed 'against judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 15th March, 1982 whereby writ petition filed by the respondents was accepted and the orders passed by the Revenue authorities in favour of the petitioner were set aside. Briefly the facts are that the Ihata in dispute was allotted to the petitioner. The respondents came to the village as refugees from Jammu and Kashmir in 1970 and got the said Ihata on rent. They raised Pakka construction thereon and they were residing therein. On 17th April, 1974 the petitioner filed an application for ejectment of the respondents and this application was accepted by the Collector on 24th August, 1974. However on appeal of the respondents the Additional Commissioner remanded the case to the Collector to rehear the parties and then to decide the case afresh. On remand the Collector reiterated his previous order whereupon the respondents appealed but this time the Additional Commissioner dismissed their appeal and subsequently the Member Board of Revenue also dismissed their revision petition. The respondents consequently challenged the orders of the Revenue authorities by way of a writ petition which was accepted by the High Court as stated above. Hence the present petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the concurrent findings of all the revenue Courts should have not been upset by the High Court in the exercise of writ jurisdiction. It was submitted that the Ihata in dispute was given to the respondents on rent by the petitioner. Consequently they had no right to file the writ petition as they were not entitled to own the Ihata under any provision of the Revenue Law or instructions there under. We have heard learned counsel at some length. The sworn statements placed on record by the respondents had indicated that they had been in possession of the disputed lhata for more than 10 years. This position has not been controverted. The instructions of the Board of Revenue applicable to the present case provide that a person who was a refugee and had been in continuous possession of an Ihata for 10 years should not be disturbed and that furthermore the petitioner had already got an Ihata in the village and he was trying to get the Ihata which was in possession of the respondents only for tethering his cattle whereas the respondents who were refugees had constructed their houses thereon and were living there. Since this is the position in our view the judgment passed by the High Court calls for no interference. The petition is therefore dismissed. A.A./N‑125/S Petition dismissed.