2004 PLP 1615 (MLD)

SH. HAKIM ALI, J.- Disputing the correctness of the order dated 26-3-1994, passed by the learned Single Judge in Cahmber of this Court in Writ Petition No.2587 of 1993/BWP, titled as "Agha Abdur Rahman and others v. Managing Director, Cholistan Development Authority, Bahawalpur", the instant Intra,Court appeal has been filed, by abovenoted appellants.

2. The facts need not be reiterated in this appeal because those have already been fully narrated in the impugned order.

3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has raised two questions: (i) That the learned Single Judge in Chamber has decided the writ petition on the factual aspect of the case, which had required factual inquiry and that remote inferences/conclusions weredrawn on the basis of mere presumptions and conjectures, unwarranted by law; and (ii) That the impugned order has not adverted to the fact that the `Farmans of Nawab Sahib' have got the force of law and those are as good as laws framed by any legislature and the disputed `Farman' dated 4-12-1893 had also the status of law of the land, so it was to be implemented by the respondents.

4. To support his version, learned counsel has referred to AIR 1961 SC 298 (Madhaorao Phalke v. State of Madhya Bhatat (Now Madya Pradesh) and another), AIR 1955 SC 352 (Ameer-un-Nisa Begum and others v. Mahboob Begum and others) and AIR 1975 SC 706 (State of Rajasthan and others v.-Sajjanlal Panjawat and others).

5. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants. As for question posed for resolution at number (i) is concerned, we have found that the learned Single Judge in Chamber has not only taken pain but has also adjudicated upon the matter in dispute with well-reasoned judgment. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has ruled out in PLD 1965 SC 690 (Haji Abdullah Khan and others v. Nisar Muhammad Khan and others), 2000 SCMR 39 (Lahore Cantt. Park View Cooperative Housing Society v. Muhammad Ishaq and others), 1994 SCMR 107 (Qutab-ud-Din v. Farzand Ali, and 1987 Law Notes (SC) (145) (Karamat Hussain v. Muhammad Zaman) that a Judge must wear the laws on the sleeves of his robe. In fact to determine as to whether the 'Farman' dated 4-12-1893 could be implemented in the year 1993 i.e. Almost after a span of one hundred years, learned Single Judge in Chamber had to solve this question by taking into consideration not only the law but some of the A facts also. It is astonishing that a document, which is being shown as "Farman" of 1893 was never acted upon by the then Ruler Nawab and the person in whose favour it is stated to have been scribed. The appellants, who intend to get the alleged 'Farman' dated 4-12-1893 implemented in the Revenue Record and to get declaration of ownership through intervention of this Court, especially in the writ jurisdiction, were to face the findings and consequences rendered by the learned Single Judge in Chamber because they had themselves invited the Court to decide the case on the basis of alleged 'Farman' of the year 1893. In such an event, when the Court was requested by the appellants themselves to issue an order for implementation of the above noted `Farman', the Court was obliged to examine genuineness of the alleged old 'Farman' of hundred years ago and the Court had to make efforts to discover correctness/genuineness of such a 'Farman', which had not seen the light of day in a century. So, when a decision has gone against them after they had tried to convince the Court upon law and facts, then they would be estopped to raise such plea. Before filing the writ, they must have known this fact that the case was to be scrutinized not only upon law but on the facts also. In fact the legal effect stems out from factual aspect of a case. A decision cannot originate in the shape of a legal solution unless there is factual foundation. Therefore, it does not lie in the mouth of the appellants to say that factual aspect of the case should not have been considered by the learned Single Judge in Chamber.

6. The learned counsel has failed to point out those parts/pieces, which had determined the factual controversy without any legal justification. Actually, the significant events and the occasions, which had occurred or had taken birth in those hundred years, were taken note of by the learned Single Judge in Chamber, in his order. It is a strange fact that Mithammad Bakhsh who had met with death, admittedly, in the year 1963 and had got other lands also, his property was got mutated by his legal heirs, the appellants, in that year but they had not brought out this alleged 'Farman' of 1893 on the scene. Why this quietness prevailed at that stage and thereafter has not been explained in the case. Cholistan Development Department was set up in 1946; while Cholistan Development Authority Act was enforced in the year 1976, even then the appellants or their predecessor-in-interest had kept mum. The whole area of Cholistan had been continually leased out for collection of `khaar' by the Government to different parties and persons at different times treating all these lands to be the owned lands of the State/Government but no resistance was shown by the appellants or their predecessor-ininterest. Punjab Abolition of Jageers Act came into being in the year 1952 and thereafter chain of Lands Reforms Law and Regulations came into being but the alleged 'Farman' was not shown, displayed or activated. It was in the year 1993 when suddently it dawned upon the appellants to claim their ownership of lands measuring 27,225 Bighas on the basis of the alleged 'Farman' of 4-12-1893. The material events/occasions were negating their ownership but those could not activate the appellants to claim their alleged ownership on the basis of alleged 'Farman'. As to why they let those material events fatally affect their alleged ownership has not been explained. The learned Single Judge in Chamber was, therefore, correct to find the 'Farman' and the allied documents to be "spurious document" and the findings of the learned Single Judge in Chamber are not liable to be reversed.

7. As regards the nature and character of Tarmans', it need not be examined or analysed because we are in full and complete agreement with the findings of the learned Singe Judge in Chamber with regard to the forged nature of the documents. The vast tracts of waste, vacant land, the unguarded wealth, and the expansion of population, need, and requirements have been attracting many persons and parties to lay false and fictitious claims upon lands. This being one of those plays is not to encourage by a Couft, especially through its extraordinary jurisdiction, which is meant for those persons, who are fair and vigilant for the safeguard of their rights and approach the Court in time. So, this document does not need any more thrashing.

8. It may be noted here that the Intra-Court appeal can be filed when the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge in Chamber is shown to have been delivered against the provisions 9f law and is the result of conclusions, which are contrary to any specific provision of law or is the result of misreading, non-reading or is the consequence of miscarriage of justice, or of like nature, liable to be corrected by a Division Bench; otherwise, the judgment cannot be upset in the IntraCourt appeal. Therefore, we dismiss the appeal without any order as to costs. M.A.W./A-130/L Appeal dismissed.