' KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY, J.--- Mst. Nasreen Akhtar respondent filed a suit in the Court of a learned Senior Civil Judge at Ferozewala seeking a declaration that she was the owner of the suit- land measuring 1 Kanal, 3 Marlas and that a sale-deed 8-9-1988 allegedly executed by Shahbaz respondent in favor of Muhammad Anwar respondent and the subsequent sale-deed executed by Muhammad Anwar respondent in favor of Dr. Ijaz Ahmad petitioner was illegal and ineffective against the rights of the said plaintiff-respondent. The said suit was dismissed by the trial Court through a judgment and decree dated 30-5-1994 which judgment and decree was reversed by the Appellate Court through a judgment, dated 2-6-1996 whereby the said suit filed by Mst. Nasreen respondent was decreed. The present petitioner questioned the said appellate judgment and decree before the Lahore High Court through Civil Revision No,2002/D of 1996 which was dismissed through a judgment dated 2-4-2002.
2. Hence this petition by Dr. Ijaz Ahmad, defendant.
3. Since the judgments of the two subordinate Courts were at variance, the learned Judge in Chambers examined the entire evidence in depth and affirmed the findings reached by the learned Appellate Judge. In reaching the said conclusions, the learned Single Bench was influenced by the fact that it was not in dispute that Shahbaz respondent was a co-owner of the suit-land who held a general power of attorney from his mother, his sister and his brother with respect to the property in-question. It had also been found by the learned High Court that one of the two surviving marginal witnesses of the sale-deed executed in favor of Mst. Nasreen, namely, Miraj Din (P.W.2) had fully supported Mst. Nasreen, plaintiff. The scribe of the said sale-deed, namely, Ghulam Haider (P.W.3) had also appeared in support of the suit and had deposed that the parties had put their signatures on the said sale-deed in his presence. The learned Judge went to the extent of personally examining the signatures of Shahbaz respondent on the sale-deed in question (Exh.P.1) and comparing the same with the admitted signatures of the said Shahbaz, found that the signatures of Shahbaz appearing on the sale-deed in question were those of the said Shahbaz. The learned Judge also took note of the submission of the present petitioner that Shahbaz had not been confronted with the sale-deed in question (Exh.P.1) and found that since Shahbaz had not denied his signatures on the said document, therefore, there was no need to put the same to Shahbaz respondent in view of the provisions of Article 145 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984. The submission regarding Dr. Ijaz Ahmad petitioner being a bona fide purchaser in good faith for valuable consideration was also examined by the learned High Court but was decided against him.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at some length and have also examined the record in the light of the submissions made by him. The learned counsel could not show any infirmity, legal for factual, in the impugned judgment or the reasons which had led the High Court in reaching the impugned conclusions.
5. The impugned judgment is, therefore, not open to any exception. This petition is consequently.
Dismissed. .
Petition dismissed.
2003 SC MR 1297 [Supreme Court of Pakistan] Present: Tanvir Ahmed Khan and Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday, JJ MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN---Petitioner versus WALI MUHAMMAD and others---Respondents Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No,2182/L of 1999, decided on 10th January, 2003.
(On appeal from the judgment dated 18-10-1999 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, passed in Writ Petition No,3597 of 1984).
Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912)--- ----Ss. 10 & 30---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---Lessee under temporary cultivation scheme---Conferment of proprietary rights upon such lessee (respondent) On promulgation of Notification dated 3-9-1979---Collector set aside such order on objection of petitioner--- Additional Commissioner accepted appeal of respondent, but Board of Revenue accepted revision filed by petitioner---High Court in Constitutional petition set aside order of Board of Revenue--- Validity--Respondent being lessee of disputed land had got better claim over proprietary rights as compared to the petitioner---Impugned judgment did not suffer from any illegality---Supreme Court dismissed petition and refused leave to appeal. [p. 1298] A Ch. Muhammad Anwar Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
Muhammad Ashraf Wahla, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No,l.
Javed Iqbal, Superintendent Litigation for Respondent No,3. Muhammad Ashraf, Naib Tehsildar for Respondent No,4. Date of hearing: 10th January, 2003.
' TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J.--- Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment, dated 18-10-1999 of the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High .Court, Lahore, whereby Writ Petition No,3597 of 1984 filed by respondent No,1, Wali Muhammad, was accepted setting aside the earlier order, dated 31- 5-1984 of the learned Member, Board of Revenue, Lahore, as having been passed without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
' The facts briefly narrated are that admittedly respondent No,1 was a lessee of land measuring 74 Kanals, 17 Marlas under 10 years lease scheme from Kharif, 1969 onwards. The Government of the Punjab in the Colonies Department promulgated a notification on 3-9-1979 providing for conferment of proprietary rights on the lessees of temporary cultivation schemes. On the promulgation of this notification, the Collector allowed the respondent to secure proprietary rights vide his order, dated 14-10-1982. The present petitioner took objection to the same, which was allowed through an order dated 26-7-1983. The respondent filed an appeal before the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Faisalabad Division, Faisalabad, which was accepted vide his judgment, dated 19-12-1983. Again, the petitioner took exception to the same through revision petition and the learned Member,, Board of Revenue, Punjab, through his order, dated 31-5-1984 accepted the same. Being aggrieved of the above order, respondent No,1 filed aforesaid writ petition before the Lahore High Court, Lahore, which was accepted by a learned Single Judge through his judgment dated 18-10-1999, impugned herein. Hence, this petition for leave to appeal.
' We have heard the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire documents placed on record with their assistance. At the very outset, Mr. Muhammad Ashraf Wahlah, learned counsel appearing for respondent No,1, has brought to our notice that the civil petition filed by the Province of Punjab against the impugned judgment has already been dismissed by this Court being barred by time. As far as the present petitioner is concerned, he has got no case to agitate qua the conferment of proprietary rights upon respondent No,1. Admittedly, respondent No,1 was the lessee of the disputed land and in the circumstances of the case he had got better claim over the proprietary rights as compared to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any illegality or legal infirmity in the impugned judgment warranting interference by this Court.
' Resultantly, for what has been stated above, the present petition is dismissed and leave declined.