' JAVED IQBAL, J.--- This petition for leave to appeal is directed against judgment, dated 27-7-1999 passed by learned Single Judge of Lahore High Court, Lahore, in Chambers whereby the revision petition preferred on behalf of petitioners has been dismissed.
2. Precisely stated the facts of the case as enumerated in the impugned judgment are to the effect that "Abdul Shakoor along with seven others on 16-6-1979 filed a suit for declaration that they were entitled to obtain ownership right in the suit-land measuring 1158 Kanals as detailed in para. 1 of the plaint and that the order of Collector dated 19-1-1971 and that of the Commissioner dated 9-11-1971 and the order of the Board of Revenue date not known were ineffective qua the rights of the plaintiff. Further that the plaintiffs being in possession of the State land were, in accordance with the decision of the Government, entitled to tender for the land in question for a fixed period and that the order of A.C. Shorkot was ineffective against them. For some reasons not apparent from the record an amended plaint, was filed on 23-6=1979 with similar contentions and prayer. The defendant Province of the Punjab resisted the suit and raised preliminary objections against the competency of the Civil Court with reference to section 36 of the Colonies Act, 1912 to entertain the suit. In the written statement it was inter alia submitted that the land in question was leased out to one Abdul Hameed in the tube-well scheme in the year 1954, which had already been cancelled on 19-1-1971 under the orders of the District Collector. Further that Commissioner, Sargodha had also maintained jhe cancellation order on the appeal of legal heirs of the deceased- Abdul Hameed who also failed before the Board of Revenue. The orders of cancellation were supported by citing the provisions of section 24 of the Colonies Act, 1912. It was further stated that part of the land had already been leased out to various other persons after resuming the same". On the failure to get relief from the forums provided under the hierarchy of revenue laws, the Civil Court was approached by filing the suit for declaration and for setting aside the order of Collector, dated 19-1- 1971 and of Commissioner dated 9-11-1971 which was dismissed by learned trial Court vide order, dated 23-1-1983 and appeal was also dismissed by means of order, dated 6-2-1983.
3. Heard Ch. M. Ashraf, learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of petitioners and Mr. Abdul Wahid Chaudhry, learned Advocate Supreme Court for respondents and perused the chequered history of the case vigilantly and examined the record with the assistance of learned counsel for the parties. It is wroth mentioning that after framing of issues petitioners/plaintiffs were asked to lead evidence but in spite of various opportunities provided on 7-6-1980, 4-11-1980, 17-11-1980, 24- 12-1980, 18-1-1981, 10-2-1981, 30-3-1981, 13-4-1981, 12-9-1981, 2-1-1982, 3-5-1982, 28-9-1982, 2-10-1982, 23-1-1983, needful could not be done and ultimately the suit of petitioners/plaintiffs was dismissed in view of the provisions as contemplated in Order XVII, rule 3, C.P.C. Which was affirmed by learned District Judge. It is reflective from record that in spite of numerous opportunities given on various occasions the petitioners/plaintiffs failed to produce any evidence to substantiate their claim and thus, the order passed by learned trial Court under Order XVII, rule 3, C.P.C. Does not warrant any interference.##TE# It further transpires from scrutiny of record that the land in question was allotted by employing deceitful means with connivance of one Allah Ditta who was incidentally Superintendent in the Board of Revenue and father-in-law of the petitioner. The land could not have been allotted to Abdul Hameed under tube-well scheme which had been cancelled on 19-1- 1971 and appeal also met the same fate and rejected by learned Commissioner on 9-11-1971. No further action was taken by the petitioners/plaintiffs against the cancellation of land which had attained finality. The claim of the petitioners/plaintiffs is baseless having no sanctity of law and therefore, the question of their legal rights and its infringement does not arise. It has rightly been observed by learned High Court in para.7 of the judgment impugned which is as follows:-- "Having considered the submissions made for the petitioners in the light of the orders of the Courts below, I entertain no doubt that this is a case where process of law has been abused to its maximum. The plaint in fact merited rejection under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. As it did not disclose any cause of action. A glance at the prayer Makes it clear that plaintiffs are not sure what they wanted.
In one and the same breath they claimed entitlement to transfer of land and at the same time they wished to be declared entitled to tender for land for a fixed period. The statement made at the bar that land was allotted to mother of plaintiffs with a promise of permanent transfer is against the pleadings of the plaintiff. The plaint it will be noted was purposely couched in vague manner. No document in support'of leasing out of the land was attached with the plaint. Only two photo copies of the aforesaid orders of the Collector and Commissioner were attached. The plaintiffs do not know when the Board of Revenue rejected their appeal yet they want the cancellation of that order."
4. Let we mention here at this juncture that allotment was got by fraudulent means and subsequent possession whereof by the petitioners/ B plaintiffs amounts to encroachment and being encroachers the question of entitlement does not arise.##TE# The pleadings are vague and contradictory and no document whatsoever was annexed with the plaint showing that the land in question was legally allotted which had rightly been cancelled by the Revenue Authorities. When the learned Advocate Supreme Court was asked about the locus standi of the petitioners after cancellation of allotment of the land in question on 9-11-1971 by the learned Commissioner which had attained finality no satisfactory answer could be given. We are of the considered view that the petitioners/plaintiffs are land grabbers and a huge chunk of land remained in their possession with the connivance of the concerned functionaries of the Board of Revenue who should also be taken to task. The land revenue worth millions of rupees could not be recovered which aspect of the matter is to be taken care of by the Board of Revenue. On the basis of sheer and fine technicalities of law no relief can be granted entitlement whereof could c not be substantiated by leading any evidence.##TE# It is high time to deal with such land mafia with iron hands. In our view substantial justice has been done and the conclusion arrived at by the learned High Court is strictly in accordance with law and settled norms of justice and being well-based does not justify any interference.
5. The petition being devoid of merit is dismissed. A copy of this order be sent to concerned Member, Board of Revenue for further action in accordance with law within a period of four weeks under intimation to the Assistant Registrar, (Branch Registry) of this Court at Lahore.