1990 PLP 655 (SCMR)

Mian Saeedur Rehman Farrukh, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Nlehdi Khan Mchtah, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner (in all Petitions). Nemo for Respondents (in all Petitions) Date of hearing: 12th June, 1989. S. USMAN ALI SHAH, J.‑‑‑These five petitions i.e. C.P.L.A. Nos.128 to 132 of 1986 have been filed by Muhammad Rafiq petitioner. All the petitions are directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 8‑12‑1985, passed in five civil revisions. Since the same matter is involved in these petitions, therefore, these are being taken up and disposed of together. The petitioner in the above mentioned petitions filed suits for possession of the disputed property against the respondents, claiming himself to be the owner and the respondents in each suit forcibly and unauthorizedly raised construction over it. The suit after contest by the respondents who claimed to be the real owners of the suit property was dismissed by the trial Court on 30‑6‑1976. On appeal before the Additional District Judge, the case was remanded to the trial Court for fresh Had Barari. The learned trial Judge after obtaining reports in this regard from the Revenue officials, ultimately dismissed the suit vide his order dated 19‑3‑1984. Appeals of the petitioner in each case before the Additional District Judge also failed vide his single judgment dated 13‑1‑1985 and thereafter civil revisions before the High Court in each case were also dismissed in limine, vide impugned judgment. Hence these petitions for leave before this Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner in these petitions contended that the Had Barari by the Revenue staff has not been carried out in a proper way because the measurement was not taken from the established 'Burji'. A perusal of the record shows that the Field 0anungo of the Revenue department has carried out the Had Barari from the permanent established Burjis as well as from the Khasra number of the rest of the houses and his report Ex.C‑1 has clearly proved that the respondents in all these petitions are in occupation of their own areas and have not encroached any portion of the petitioner's land. All the three Courts below concurrently upheld that the Had Barari carried out by the Field Qanungo and the statement in support thereof by Azimud Din Girdawar, is proper and in accordance with the Revenue rules. No ground for interference with the concurrent findings of the Courts below has been brought to our notice by the learned counsel in these petitions. The result is that we dismiss all these petitions and refuse leave to appeal. A.A./M‑1035/89 Leave refused.