P L D 1959 W (PLP)

Fazal‑e‑Ghani Khan for Petitioners. Hassan Akhtar for Respondents. These are two second revision petitions against an order of the Additional Commissioner (Revenue) Peshawar and D. I. Khan Divisions, dated 21st June 1957, upholding an order of the Collector, Attock, dated 29th June 1956 by which an appeal against the order of the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, dated 1‑3‑56 was dismissed, whereby decree for Rs. 27 and 54‑6‑0 were granted with costs to the respondents. The facts are that the present petitioners, who are village cobblers by profession, entered into an agreement with the respondents by which some land was taken by the petitioners for the construction of houses on payment of Rs. 3 per house as Haq Buha. Arrears of these dues accumulated from Kharif, 1951 to Rabi 1954 and a suit for their judgment was lodged before, the Assistant Collector 1st Grade. The suit was contested on the ground‑ (a) that the dues claimed were a village cess which the land lords were not entitled to recover under section 113 of the Tenancy Act, and (b) that the land for the use of which Haq Buha was claimed was not "land" within the meaning of the Punjab Tenancy Act and as such the suits were not cognizable by the Revenue Courts. It was held by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade that the dues could not be considered as "cesses" in this case and the land on which the houses were built was "Land" within the meaning of the Punjab Tenancy Act. An appeal against this order before the Collector was dismissed. The learned Additional Commis sioner also dismissed the revision petition. I have heard Mr. Fazal‑e‑Ghani, Advocate, for the petitioners and Raja Hassan Akhtar, Advocate, for the respondents. It has again been urged before me that the lower Courts have erred in holding that the Haq Buha dues in this case were not a "cess" as defined by the Tenancy Act. Definition of "cess" has been given under section 2 (2) of the Punjab Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1950, and as the learned Additional Commis sioner has rightly pointed out the dues in this case claimed by the landlords are not covered by the definition of the village "cesses" as given in section 2 (2) aforesaid. It has also been contended that even if these dues are not held too be a "cess" they cannot be described as "rent" as defined under the Tenancy Act since they are claimed in respect of land, which is outside the village abadi and cannot be said to be occupied for purposes subservient to agriculture: On this point there is a concurrent finding of both the Assistant Collector and the Collector that the houses are being occupied for purposes subservient to agriculture. The learned counsel for the petitioners has tried to show that this cannot be considered a concurrent finding on a question of fact as it is a question of interpreting e the law as to whether the purpose for which these houses are being used can be said to be "subservient to agriculture" as defined in the Tenancy Act. The scope of revision is limited by section 84 of the Punjab Tenancy Act and it has been held that normally under section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code even a mistake of law is not a ground for revision unless there has been flagrant case of injustice. In this case the respondents are merely demanding fulfilment of a contract between the parties according to which the petitioners were required to pay rent for the use of land on which they had built houses. I do not see why I should interfere to assist the petitioners to escape from their liability. For these reasons I feel unable to interfere and dismiss both these petitions. A. H. Petitions dismissed.