1989 PLP 1428 (SCMR)

USMAN ALI SHAH, J.‑‑The petitioners seek leave to appeal against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, Circuit Bench, Abbottabad, dated 25‑1‑1989, whereby, revision petition filed by them was dismissed and findings of the Courts below were confirmed. The petitioners were owners of land comprising. Khasra No.772, measuring 199 kanals 2 marlas and the respondent being a contiguous owner to the said Khasra, allegedly encroached a portion of the suit land. The petitioners filed an application for demarcation before the Revenue Officer, who found that the respondent had encroached an area of 39 kanals 1 marla which was shown as Khasra No.772/1. The petitioners filed a suit for possession of Khasra No.772/1 measuring 39 kanals 1 marlas. The respondent contested the suit. Resultantly, the suit of the petitioners was dismissed vide order dated 11‑6‑1973. On appeal of the petitioners before the Add. District Judge, Hazara, the case was remanded to the lower Court for retrial according to the direction of the District Court, vide order dated 26‑7‑1975. The learned trial Judge after framing issues obtained evidence adduced by the parties, vide his order dated 13‑3‑1979, decreed the suit for possession of the suit land in favour of the plaintiffs /petitioners, on payment of Rs.7,241 as costs of improvements. The respondent being aggrieved filed appeal before the Addl. District Judge, Haripur, who vide his order dated 26‑4‑1980, dismissed the appeal. ` Against the said order the respondent filed civil revision before the Peshawar High Court, Circuit Bench, Abbottabad. A learned Single Judge of the High Court who heard the revision, vide his judgment dated 4‑12‑1982 accepted the revision, set aside the remand order of the Addl. District Judge dated 26‑7‑1975 and that subsequent order of the Civil Judge dated 13‑3‑1979 and sent back the case to the Addl. District Judge, Haripur, with direction that Appeal No.149/13 of 1973 should be decided afresh and according to law. The learned Addl. District Judge in the remand appeal held that at the time of consolidation proceedings Muhammad Maskeen respondent was full-fledged owner of the suit land. He was not made a party to the consolidation proceedings, therefore, additionally these proceedings were not only illegal, but also against the golden principle of natural justice that no one should be condemned unheard was also violated in his case. The petitioners filed Civil Revision No.203 of 1983 in the Peshawar High Court, Circuit Bench, Abbottabad which found no merit and dismissed vide impugned judgment. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record and findings of the Courts below in the light of the contention raised by the learned counsel. The record of the case will show that the respondent is recorded in possession as owner (Hisadar) of the suit land which he had purchased byway of sale for consideration of Rs.800. This fact is confirmed by Muhammad Anwar Khan D.W.3 who had stated in statement that he along with others had sold the land in dispute to the respondent and physical possession of which was delivered to him on the day of sale. Khasra Girdawari from Rabi 1958 to Kharif 1972 produced by Abdul Qayyum Halqa Patwari (D.W.2) also confirms continuous possession of the respondent of the suit land. On the other hand the petitioners have failed to prove their claim that they were in possession of the suit land within 12 years from the date of filing of the suit of the disputed land. All the controversial points raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners are relating to the question of fact which the learned Courts below have thoroughly adjudicated upon and arrived at concurrent findings in favour of the respondent. It is, therefore, obvious that all the decisions including that of the High Court are against the petitioners. Thus, in our opinion, the view taken by the learned High Court, while exercising its revisional jurisdiction, is perfectly m accordance with law and calls for no interference. The result is that this petition has no force which is accordingly dismissed, leave to appeal is refused. A.A./M. 808/S Petition dismissed.