2021 PLP 1691 (YLR)

SHAHID BILAL HASSAN, J.

Tersely, the petitioner/plaintiff instituted a suit for declaration against the respondents/defendants challenging the order dated 26.02.1998 passed by the respondent/defendant No.2 under section 30(2) of the Colonization of Government Lands Act,1912. The suit was contested by the respondents/ defendants while submitting written statement. The controversies in the pleadings were summed up into issues and evidence of the parties, pro and contra, was recorded. The learned trial Court vide impugned judgment and decree dated 25.06.2009 dismissed suit of the petitioner/plaintiff, who being aggrieved of the same preferred an appeal but it was dismissed vide impugned judgment and decree dated 12.05.2010; hence, the instant civil revision.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the impugned judgments and decrees are against law and facts of the case; that the Member Board of Revenue has passed the impugned order dated 26.02.1998 under section 30(2) of the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912, without jurisdiction as the same relates to tenancy rights, but this fact has not been considered judiciously by the learned Courts below; that the price assessment dated 19.05.1997 by the respondents/defendant is not fair assessment as the same is politically motivated to inflict injury to the petitioner; that material illegalities and irregularities have been committed while passing the impugned judgments and decrees, which are based on surmises and conjectures as well as assumptions and presumptions; thus, the same are not sustainable in the eye of law. By allowing the revision petition in hand, the impugned judgments and decrees may be set aside and the suit instituted by the petitioner may be decreed as prayed for. Reliance has been placed on Mr. Muhammad Tamil Asghar v. The Improvement Trust, Rawalpindi (PLD 1965 Supreme Court 698), Hamid Husain v. Government of West Pakistan and others (1974 SCMR 356), Haji Muhammad Khan and 2 others v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan through Pakistan Railway and 2 others (1992 SCMR 2439) Mst. Kamina and another v. Al-Amin Goods Transport Agency through L.Rs. and 2 others (1992 SCMR 1715), Province of Punjab through Chief Secretary and 5 others v. Malik Ibrahim and Sons and another (2000 SCMR 1172), Qasim Ali v. Rehmatullah (2005 SCMR 1926), Gul Kanjeer Khan and others v. Subedar Umer Khatab and others (2007 SCMR 800), Muhammad Nazir Khan v. Ahmad and 2 others (2008 SCMR 521), Muhammad Sadiq and others v. Barkat Ali and 4 others (1990 CLC 533 Lahore), Muhammad Liaquat and 5 others v. Member, Board of Revenue (Colonies), Punjab, Lahore and 3 others (2000 CLC 953 Lahore), Province of the Punjab through Collector and 2 others v. Nazir Ahmad and 9 others (2004 YLR 1650 Lahore) and Province of Punjab through Collector and 4 others v. Haji Wali Muhammad and 4 others (2004 MLD 441 Lahore).

3. On the contrary, learned law officer has supported the impugned judgments and decrees and has prayed for dismissal of the civil revision in hand.

4. Heard.

5. Suffice it to observe, after considering the arguments and perusing the record, that the plea taken up by the petitioner has itself been denuded by the alleged registered sale deed Ex.P3, which shows that the agricultural land in the canal colony was sold out, so the Member (Colonies) Board of Revenue was well within jurisdiction to deal with the matter and pass appropriate order in this regard under section 30(2) of the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912. As such, the learned Courts below, while considering the facts arose out from the record, have rightly decided the issues of jurisdiction of the Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue. Therefore, the objection and argument in this regard has no force and the same is discarded. Moreover, when no malice, mala fide or ill will on the part of the Member (Colonies) while passing the order dated 26.02.1998 has been pleaded or brought on record, section 36 of the Act, 1912 ibid bars jurisdiction of the Civil Court to make any interference in such like orders, which have been passed with jurisdiction.

6. During proceedings before the learned trial Court it has emerged that the brother of the petitioner was Member of Provincial Assembly (MPA) of the Ruling Party at that time when the land in disputed was allegedly sold out to him through private treaty, which has rightly been concluded to have been obtained through influence of the ruling party and when the position was as such that the land in dispute was obtained through fraud and pressure, the Member (Colonies) was well within jurisdiction to cancel the same, when the same proved affirmative. In Mian Asghar Ali v. Province of Punjab through District Collector and others (2006 SCMR 936), the Apex Court of the country, invariably, held:-- Independent thereof any intervention with the impugned order would tantamount to encouraging perpetuation of patent illegal devices to protect the illegitimate gains reaped by the political vultures for unjust enrichment at the cost of public exchequer which has eroded the very moral fabric of the society." The said esteemed judgment was further affirmed in Mian Asghar Ali v. Government of Punjab through Secretary (Colonies) BOR, Lahore and others (2017 SCMR 118) and sale through private treaty under the influence of the politicians has been discouraged. In this view of the matter, the learned Courts below have rightly assumed jurisdiction vested in them, thus, the findings are maintained.

7. Apart from the above, the petitioner did not seek possession of the disputed land and only sought declaratory decree, as it is established on record that the possession of the disputed land was of provincial government as per Ex.D3, so the suit was bad and was not as per mandate of section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 and was not maintainable, which was rightly declared as such by the learned appellate Court while passing the impugned judgment and decree dated 12.05.2010.

8. In addition to the above, scope of interference with concurrence findings of facts by High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction is very narrow, as while examining the legality of judgment and decree in exercise of powers under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, this Court cannot upset findings of facts, howsoever erroneous such findings are, on reappraisal of evidence, and take a difference view of evidence, especially when there is no misreading and non-reading of evidence on record. Reliance is placed on Muhammad Feroze and others v. Muhammad Jamaat Ali (2006 SCMR 1304), Mst. Zaitoon Begum v. Nazar Hussain and another (2014 SCMR 1469), Cantonment Board through Executive Officer, Cantt. Board Rawalpindi v. Ikhlaq Ahmed and others (2014 SCMR 161) and Muhammad Farid Khan v. Muhammad Ibrahim and others (2017 SCMR 679).

9. So far as, case law relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are concerned, with utmost respect to the same, it is observed that the facts and circumstances of the case in hand are entirely different from that cases/ judgments, so the same are not helpful to the petitioner's cause. Even otherwise, each and every case has its own peculiar facts and circumstances and the Courts have to act like a sieve so as to reach to a just conclusion and administer safer justice to the parties.

10. For the foregoing reasons and while placing reliance on the judgments supra, the civil revision in hand comes to naught, hence, the same stands dismissed with no order as to the costs. MQ/M-62/L Revision dismissed.