2006 PLP 649 (SCMR)

FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J

This petition for leave to appeal is directed against judgment, dated 4-2-1999 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Civil Revision No.2959-D of 1996.

2. The respondent filed a suit, against the petitioner, for declaration that he, being an allottee by the Land Reforms Authorities, was owner in possession of the suit - land measuring 196 Kanals and 16 Marlas situated in Mauza Pabbarwala; Tehsil Chiniot, District Jhang, and that the entries in Jamabandi for the year 1983-84 showing the petitioner as owner of the suit property were illegal, void and ineffective. In his written statement, the petitioner took the position that the suit-land having been resumed under the Martial Law Regulation No.64 was allotted to him, as its tenant, on payment by instalments.

3. The trial Court, after framing the issues and recording the evidence, decreed the suit of the respondent by judgment and decree dated 22-11-1995. The appeal and Civil Revision No.2959-D of 1996 of the petitioner were dismissed, vide judgments dated 19-10-1996 and 4-2-1999 respectively, by the Additional District Judge and the Lahore High Court, Lahore. Hence this petition for leave to appeal'.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was duly allotted the suit property, vide order, dated 16-4-1964, by the Assistant Land Commissioner in lieu his earlier allotment. The respondent had manipulated, in his favour, certain entries in the Revenue Record by adding therein the name of his father Soina. The cultivation of the suit property by the petitioner and his forefathers was admitted by P.W.1 the allotment and cultivation of the land by the petitioner was also proved through D.W.5, son of the declarant under M.L.R.64. The learned counsel lastly contended that the documentary evidence (Exh.D.1 to Exh.D.4) of the petitioner was not properly considered and that the evidence of the respondent was misread by the Courts.

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the suit-land had been duly allotted in favour of the respondent by the Land Reforms Authorities on payment of Government dues. The allotment was given to further effect by the Revenue Authorities in the operations of consolidation of the land holdings of the village. A Mutation No.686 (Exh.P.12) of the suit-land was also attested by the Revenue Authorities on 4-10-1980 in favour of the respondent. The concurrent findings of fact were recorded by the Courts after proper evaluation and appreciation of evidence on record.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. We find that all the three Courts have recorded concurrent findings of fact on the basis of voluminous evidence on record that the suit-land was validly allotted to the respondent by the Land Reforms Authorities after its resumption from the declarant. The respondent had also paid the instalments and other dues in respect of the same and Mutation No.686 Exh.P.12 was also attested in his favour. The findings of the Lahore High Court in pra.6 of the impugned judgment are reproduced below: "(6) The evidence produced by the plaintiff-respondent indicates that he has paid the price of the land in question in instalments to the Government through form L.C. No.XIV, Exh.P.1 from 30-7-1960 to 31-7-1971. The payments of the instalments were regularly made by the respondent to the Government. Similarly the other documents relied upon by the respondent Exh.P.2, copy of Mutation No.686 indicates that the land in dispute previously belonged to the Provincial Government and was mutated in his name through this mutation. The petitioner has relied upon Jamabandi for the year 1983-84 and the receipts of payments Exhs.D.1 to D.4. These documents are not sufficient to conclude that the petitioner is owner of the property in dispute. Form LC.XI at page 97 of the petition manifests that some allotment was made in favour of petitioner Mahmood son of Bahawal but same was reviewed by the Deputy Land Commissioner vide order, dated 26-5-1962 and new Khatoni was ordered to be distributed by canceling the aforesaid land. This order was passed by Assistant Land Commissioner on 16-4-1964. This document indicates that the allotment, if any of the petitioner was cancelled subsequently. The overwhelming documentary evidence Exhs.P.I to P.12 produced by respondent on the record clearly shows that he was the owner of the land in dispute. The plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent got erased his father's name and substituted the name of Soina, his father is not established on the record. The documentary evidence placed on the record clearly shows that the respondent was allotted the land in dispute under the Land Reforms and a mischief was played by the petitioner being an namesake of the respondent by manoeuvering a change of father's name in the column of father's name in the Jamabandi in question. Learned A counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any misreading and non-reading of the material evidence placed on the record."

7. No exception can be taken to the conclusions drawn by the High Court after taking the evidence of the parties into consideration. The petitioner could not prove that the suit-land was ever allotted to him. The impugned judgment of the Lahore High Court does not call for any interference. This is not a fit case for grant of leave to appeal.

8. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in this petition and the same is dismissed accordingly. S.A.K./M-829/5????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.