2019 PLP 42 (CLCN)

CH. MUHAMMAD IQBAL, J.

Through this revision petition the petitioner challenged the judgment and decree dated 29th of January 2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge Faisalabad whereby the suit for declaration filed by the respondent was decreed and the judgment and decree dated 24th of September 2011 passed by the learned Additional District Judge Faisalabad dismissing the appeal of the petitioner.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent filed a suit for declaration against the petitioner alleging therein that as per survey a plot number 569 - J situated at Mai Di Jhuggi was allotted to the respondent/plaintiff on the basis of letter dated 9th of June 1996 and vide letter number 598 dated 21st of January 1985 rate was fixed at Rs.172/- and the petitioner/defendants refused to receive the price despite repeated requests of the respondent. The petitioner/defendant filed contesting written statement, issues were framed, evidence was recorded and vide judgment and decree dated 29th of January 2009 suit of the respondent for declaration was decreed. The petitioner filed appeal which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge vide judgment and decree dated 24th of September 2011 hence the present revision petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the rate of the land is required to be paid as per notification dated 9th of June 1996 but both the courts below have not considered this aspect of the matter and decreed the suit in favour of the respondent in a hasty manner. He further submitted that the suit land is situated in Gulistan Colony and not at Mai Di Jhuggi therefore notification of 1985 is not applicable upon the case of the respondent. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that all the evidence produced by the petitioner/defendant is out of pleading. Further submitted that the petitioner admitted in his written statement that the suit property is situated within the area of Mai Di Jhuggi and notification of 1985 is fully applicable upon the case of the respondent/plaintiff. Heard. Issue No.1 is pivotal issue in this case which is reproduced as under:- "

1. Whether plaintiff is owner in possession of suit land and is entitled for decree of declaration as prayed for? OPP." From the perusal of the written statement filed by the petitioner it reveals that the petitioner admitted that:- The respondent/plaintiff produced Muhammad Siddique, Head Clerk as PW 1, who brought the record of Survey Plot No.569-J Katchi Abadi Mai Di Jhuggi Part III. He testified the copy of survey Ex.P1 is correct as per his record. Amjad Ali Alvi appeared as PW2, who produced the letter in favour of the plaintiff Ex.P3 and challan form dated 30.03.2000 as Ex.P4, list of rates in the area of Mai Di Jhuggi and other areas as Ex.P

5. On the other hand the petitioner produced Ghulam Murtaza as DWI, who during cross-examination stated that:- The petitioner also produced Muhammad Sharif Ameen, Assistant Director, as DW2, Khurram Nawaz Siddiqui, Assistant Director as DW3 and Maqsood Ahmad Patwari as DW4 in support of his stance but the statements made by the DWs are not in line with the averments of the written statement, as such the same are out of pleadings therefore, it cannot be considered or discussed, rather same should be ignored while deciding the lis as held in the cases of Zulfiqar and others v. Shahdat Khan (PLD 2007 SC 582), Muhammad Nawaz alias Nawaza and others v. Member Judicial Board of Revenue and others (2014 SCMR 914) and Combined Investment (Pvt.) Limited v. Wali Bhai and others (PLD 2016 SC 730). When question confronted to the learned counsel for the petitioner whether any evidence was produced which proves that the suit land is not situated within the area of Mai Di Jhuggi, he admitted that in this respect no evidence was produced. As per notification of 1985 rate of land was fixed at Rs.172 per marla and development charge were fixed Rs.500 per marla. The record keeper of the petitioner/defendant department admitted the survey register Ex.P1 and at Sr. No.631 the name of the respondent/plaintiff is reflected. The respondent/plaintiff has proved that the suit property is situated within the area of Katchi Abaadi of Mai Di Jhuggi whereas the petitioner failed to rebut the same through oral as well as documentary evidence, as such no illegality has been committed by both the courts below while passing the impugned judgments and decrees. 5(sic.) The concurrent findings of fact are against the petitioners which do not call for any interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction in absence of any illegality or any other error of jurisdiction. Reliance is placed on the cases of Muhammad Feroze and others v. Muhammad Jamaat Ali (2006 SCMR 1304), Rashid Ahmad v. Said Ahmad (2007 SCMR 926), Asmatullah v. Amanat Ullah through LRs (PLD 2008 SC 155) and Mst. Zaitoon Begum v. Nazar Hussain and another (2014 SCMR 1469).

6. In view of above, this civil revision is dismissed being misconceived and devoid of any merits. No order as to costs. ZC/F-13/L Revision dismissed.