2017 PLP 145 (YLRN)

MUHAMMAD ALAM, J.

Petitioners/plaintiffs have challenged judgment/decree dated 19-05-2014 of the District Court, whereby, CFA No.26/ 2011 has been dismissed.

2. Petitioners/plaintiffs filed Civil Suit No.59/2010, seeking declaration of title of the petitioners/plaintiffs to the suit land as well as for possession of the same. Through judgment/order dated 26-05-2011, the learned trial court dismissed the said suit, and feeling aggrieved from the same, petitioners/ plaintiffs filed the first appeal. Learned first appellate court dismissed the said appeal and passed the following order:-

12. Now the question of relief. Plaintiffs/ appellants and defendants/ respondents both have failed to prove their respective claims. It is proved on record that suit property belongs to the government: hence by dismissing this appeal respondent No.3 is directed to vacate the suit property from all illegal occupants by exercising his power under the Nautore Rules. Cost shall follow the event.

3. Learned counsel for petitioners/ plaintiffs, learned counsel for respondents Nos.1 to 11 and the learned Additional Advocate General advanced arguments, and I have gone through the material available on file. In the opinion of learned counsel for petitioners/ plaintiffs, impugned order is result of misreading of evidence. Counsel for petitioners/ plaintiffs was of the view that if the evidence of petitioners/plaintiffs was correctly read, they had established the suit, therefore, suit was fit to be decreed. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents Nos.1 to 11 concurred with the views of learned counsel for petitioners/plaintiffs to the extent of the argument that the impugned judgment of the first appellate court was result of misreading of evidence. Anyhow, learned counsel for respondents/ defendants Nos. 1 to 11 was of the view that they had established their title to the suit land and they were entitled to be declared as true owners of the suit land. Learned Additional Advocate General, who represented respondents Nos.12 and 13, argued that the impugned judgment/ order of the first appellate court is correct in all respects and the suit land is government land. In the opinion of learned Additional Advocate General, the first appellate court has rightly passed the impugned order.

4. I have minutely perused plaint and written statements thereto. In the very peculiar circumstances of the case in hand, pleadings of the parties attained very importance. From plain perusal of heading of plaint, it very clearly transpires that petitioners/plaintiffs have claimed their title to the suit land on the basis of old possession of the petitioners/plaintiffs on the same. It is not disputed that the suit land situated in district Skardu and Skardu is a settled area. In settled areas, every party to a suit is supposed to prove their title to any immovable property through record of the revenue department or settlement office. From plain perusal of parawise written statement of respondents/ defendants Nos.1 to 7 and 11, it is evident that they have also claimed their title to the suit land on the ground of old possession. In para No.2 of parawise written statement, respondents/defendants Nos.12 and 13 have specifically averred that suit land is government land, hence, rest of the parties cannot claim their title to the same without any proper allotment in their names.

5. I have gone through three very important documents that parties have filed and the learned trial court has marked as Exh.P/3, Exh.P/4 and Exh.D.5/1. It is very important to note that in all the said documents, word "Khalisa Sarkar" has clearly been written in columns showing title to the suit land. So this fact is almost admitted that the suit land is still government land. It is also an admitted fact that Nautore Rules are a law governing management of government lands and does not provide for title of any of the party to such lands without any allotment etc. Learned counsel for petitioners/plaintiffs or learned counsel for respondents Nos.1 to 11 failed to show any provision of the said Rules showing that mere possession of any of the party on the suit land confers any title. So, proof of possession of either of the parties, except respondents Nos.12 and 13, is of no use without any document showing title.

6. Yet another very important aspect of the case in hand is that respondents Nos.1 to 11 did not challenge impugned findings of the first appellate court in any forum, therefore, impugned order has attained finality against respondents Nos.1 to

11. I found findings of the first appellate court in paras Nos.8 and 9 of the impugned judgment that very clearly go counter to the claim of respondents Nos.1 to

11. For ready reference, I reproduce said findings of the first appellate court hereunder:-

8. Now the second point. Heavy onus was on the defendants 1 to 11/respondents 1 to 11 to prove their long standing possession and development over the suit property. Defendants 1 to 11 in their written statement did not allege anything categorically about the suit property. It is on record that propriety of suit land rests with the Government. Defendants 1 to 11 on the one hand admitted the ownership of Government over the suit property but on the other hand they did not claim any allotment in their favour. Their case is based on mere denials. Once it is admitted that suit property belongs to government then in presence of Nautore Rules a plea of sheer possession over government property without claiming any allotment is of no avail. The interesting aspect of defence evidence is statement of DW5 Akbar Ali Halqa Patwari. Defendants 1 to 11 examiend DW5 to prove the content of document Exh.D.5/1 and DW5 verified the said document by comparing the same with original record. By proving the document Exh.D.5/1 defendants 1 to 11 have washed out their own case by themselves. Issue held not proved.

9. Now the third point. Documents Exh.P/3, Exh.P/4 and Exh.D.5/1 and the relevant statement of DW5 on record it is proved that suit property belongs to the government. Issue held proved on record.

7. In the result, I hold that the judgment/order of the first appellate court is result of very correct appreciation of relevant laws and evidence of the parties, therefore, merits to be upheld. Petition stands dismissed. Petitioners to bear costs. This file be consigned to record. ZC/24/GB Revision dismissed.