1999 PLP 927 (SCMR)

MUNAWAR AHMED MIRZA, J.

These petitions for leave to appeal are directed against judgment dated 14-10-1997 passed by Abbottabad Bench of Peshawar High Court, whereby Writ Petition No.60 of 1995 field by the petitioners was dismissed.

2. Relevant facts briefly mentioned are that petitioners claim occupancy tenancy rights with regard to 450 Kanals of land situated in Village Jabbar, Tehsil and District Mansehra within the purview of section 5(c) of Punjab Tenancy Act and provisions of Hazara Tenancy Regulation, 1987.

3. It is case of the petitioners that certain disputes between their predecessors and other holders of adjacent land resulted in civil litigation. The civil suits amongst contesting parties were eventually decided during year 1905, by way of compromise decree. The petitioners claim to have cultivated suit land by availing occupancy rights over suit land to that extent of 3/4th share and non -occupancy cultivatory rights for remaining 1/4th share of said land. According to petitioners their possession over the lands in above capacity has remained undisturbed.

4. It was grievance of the petitioners, that on promulgation of N.-W.F.P Tenancy Act, 1950, when occupancy rights were converted into ownership, the benefit thereof was not conferred upon petitioners disregarding statutory requirements. However, during year 1978 some of the petitioners wanted partition of lands, when it transpired that their rights accruing on the basis of compromise decree and legal entitlement conferred by afore-qouted legislation have not been incorporated in the Revenue Record.

5. Thus civil suits were instituted in the Court of Civil Judge, Mansehra, seeking correction of entries. Plaint was returned on the ground that matter was triable by the Revenue Courts. Appeal filed before District Judge was also rejected. Thereafter, petitioners filed their claim before Collector, Matasehra where private respondents raised objection about maintainability and bar of limitation. The petition was ultimately dismissed by Collector, Mansehra, vide order dated 27-4-1991. Appeal filed before Additional Commissioner was also dismissed on 11-8-1991. Petitioners then challenged above decisions by way of Revision Petition No.6 of 1994, which was rejected by Senior Member, Board of Revenue, Peshawar (Camp at Abbottabad) on 13-3-1995. Operative portion reads thus: "The perusal of the record indicates that not only the petition of the petitioners was hit by limitation but also their contention is contrary to the facts on record. During this period the petitioners and their predecessor-in-interest have been purchasing the land from the owners/respondents and mutations to this effect was also attested by the Revenue Officer. The learned Revenue E.A.C. has discussed all these points raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners at the bar the has given his findings on all these issues. The petitioners have themselves recognized the status of the respondents as owners of the land and have also been purchasing their Hisadari shares. As such the plea taken by them before the lower Court did not find support from the Revenue Record wherein the respondents are clearly mentioned as owners of the impugned land. Under the circumstances stated above, I come to the conclusion that the order of the lower Court does not warrant interference at this stage. All the four revision petitions being without any substance, are dismissed with no orders as to costs."

6. Petitioners still aggrieved had challenged decisions of above-referred revenue forums by means of Writ Petition No.60 of 1995 before Peshawar High Court. The claim of the petitioners was thoroughly scrutinized by Division Bench of Peshawar High. Court at Abbottabad. This Writ Petition was ultimately dismissed vide detailed judgment dated 14-10-1997 which has been assailed through present petitions' for leave to appeal.

7. Sardar Muhammad Aslam, Advocate Supreme Court, for petitioners, emphatically urged that occupancy tenancy rights of the petitioners over 3/4 portion of the suit land were fully established from the compromise decree granted during year 1905. It was canvassed that petitioners through their predecessors have continuously held cultivatory possession of suit land; therefore, it was statutory obligation of the concerned Revenue Authorities to grant them ownership rights by making necessary entries in Revenue Record. Learned counsel attempted to suggest that on becoming aware about failure o; Revenue Authorities to carry out necessary correction in Revenue Record, immediately proceedings were launched for rectifying the wrong. It was maintained that keeping in view peculiar circumstances delay was condonable.

8. We have carefully perused the available record in the light of above submissions. There is hardly any plausible explanation offered by petitioners regarding inordinate delay in seeking .remedy as prescribed under the law, It appears highly unusual rather unconceivable that predecessors of the petitioners despite serious contest about their right and success by procuring compromise decree would not make any endeavour for getting entries of revenue record in their favour. Besides, considerable portions of the lands with passage of time at different occasions were sold by recorded owners without slightest protest from the petitioners or their predecessors. Revenue Authorities during proceedings filed by the petitioners have adequately examined all aspect and arrived at logical conclusions. Similarly, High Court in the impugned judgment has elaborately discussed the points agitated on behalf of petitioners, by malting reference to entire material on record. The conclusions drawn by all the forum below are based on sound and cogent reasons. Therefore, in our opinion the impugned judgment is unexceptionable. We are, thus inclined to dismisses both the petitions. Consequently, leave to appeal is refused. H.B.T./R-32/S Petitions dismissed.