' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.--- This petition has been filed for leave to appeal against the judgment, dated 19th September, 2001 passed by Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi whereby Civil Revision No,465-D of 1996 filed by the petitioners challenging judgments of Civil Judge and District Judge, dated 18-11-1990 and 11-12-1995, respectively, has been dismissed.
2. Precisely stating the facts of the case are that the suit-land,entering into Khasra Nso.1726, 1727,.
1728, situated in village Guliana, Tehsil Gujar Khan, District Rawalpindi, measuring 69 Kanals 18 Marlas was statedly transferred by the Evacuee Settlement Department in the name of Fazal Din son of Ghattia as back as in the year, 1963. Original transferee in turn transferred this property to one Jumma who then sold it go Gustasab son of Rehman Ali, vide Mutation No,445, dated 10th October, 1966. The respondents purchased the property from Gustasabvide Mutation No,450, attested on 18th/19th January, 1967. Respondents claim was that the possession of the suit-land was also given to them but towards the month of August, 1987, petitioners through Forest Department attempted to dispossess them from the property. As such they filed a suit for declaration and injunction in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Rawalpindi with the prayer that the petitioners be restrained from taking over the possession of the land from them. The suit was contested by the petitioners inter alia on the ground that the property, subject-matter of the proceedings is under the control of Forest Department since, 1961 vide Notification No,Agri-SO- FTIII.V111.2.240/60, dated 15th May, 1961 on lease obtained by it from the Evacuee Department for a period of 25 years and subsequently it wastransferred in the name of the Forest Departmentby the Chief Settlement Commissioner Punjab vide decision incorporated in the minutes of meeting held on 29th June, 1965, in pursuance whereof the payment of sum of Rs,1,17,930 was also made by the Department on 30th June. 1974 in respect of the evacuee land including the disputed land entering into Khasra numbers noted hereinabove. Learned Civil Judge, after framing issues, arising out of the pleadings of the parties and recording evidence of the parties, vide judgment, dated 18th November, 1990 decreed the suit in favour of the respondent. Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the District Judge on 11th December, 1995. Both the judgments/decrees were challenged by the Department before Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi by filing Civil Revision but without any success. As such instant petition has been filed.
3. Learned counsel appearing for petitioners contended that respondents have based their case on Mutation No,392 (Exh.P-10) attested in favour of Fazal Din somewhere in 1963. According to him this document as well as notification which was issued by the Government of Punjab, dated 15th May, 1961 in favour of the Forest Department have not been interpreted/discussed in detail. According to him mutation entry itself is not sufficient to create proprietary rights, therefore, Fazal Din had no right to transfer the land in the name of subsequent purchasers and if notification, dated 15th May, 1961 is considered independently it would reveal that initially this property was given on lease to Forest Department. Besides it other documents available on record would reveal that valid title against consideration was transferred in favour of Forest Department by the Chief Settlement Commissioner, therefore, respondents are not the owners of the property and suit filed by them was liable to be dismissed.
4. On the other hand learned counsel appearing for respondents vehemently argued that Fazal Din came into possession of the land, subject-matter of the proceedings, through a valid transfer order issuedby the Settlement Department as back as in the year, 1963-64, therefore, he had a right to sell it subsequently being its exclusive owner.
5.We have examined the contention of both the learned counsel in the light of available record. It is to be noted that according to the contents of the Notification No,Agri-SO-FT-HI,VIII 2.240/60, dated 15th May, 1961, the property was taken over by the Government of Punjab under the Provisions of section 38 of the Forest Act, 1927 for the purpose of forestation for a period of 25 years. If this notification is accepted to be correct, then question for consideration would be that the A property which has already been given to Forest Department in lieu of compensation, then what was the authority of the Chief Settlement Commissioner to transfer its ownership to Fazal Din. However, all these questions will be considered in detail at the time of hearing of appeal, arising out of instant petition.
' Thus to examine the questions raised by the learned counsel, leave to appeal is granted.