1. ASLAM RIAZ HUSAIN, J..--The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of .The High Court dated the 6th July 1978.
2. The facts giving rise to the petition are briefly as follows;--- Faiz Muhammad and three other petitioners claimed to be in continuous possession of a share in the agricultural Survey No. 377 measuring 5.28 acres situated in Deh Kandha, District Nawab Shah.
3. It is stated that Faiz Muhammad petitioner No. 1, and Mohabat, the deceased father of petitioners Nos. 2, 3 and 4 i.e. Meeral, Ghulam Mohammad and A.I Murad) along with Ahmad and Piyororam had purchased a share in the aforementioned land from Shewakram and Naraindas, vide a registered sale deed, dated 9th of April 1947. But it is admitted that the petitioners did not get the sale confirmed from the Custodian, although Ahmad and Piyororam got their share of the land confirmed from the Custodian. As a result the land which had fallen to the share of the petitioners came into .The compensation pool and was transferred by the Settlement Authorities to one Rahim Khan, who, in turn, sold it to Abdul Kabir respondent No:
2. The petitioners refused to give Batai to the aforementioned Abdul Kabir. He approached .Mukh--tiarkar, respondent No. 1. The latter, who is also the Tribunal constituted under the Sind Tenancy Act, 1950, issued a notice to the petitioners in connection with the payment of Batai to- Abdul Kabir respondent requiring them to appear before him on 10-6-1978: Aggrieved by this order the petitioners filed a writ petition in the Sind High Court which was dismissed on 16-7-1978. Hence the present petition for special leave 'to appeal.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners- has admitted before us that the petitioners have no right over the land in dispute under the Evacuees Laws but contended that they had become owners because of having been in adverse possession of the said land for more than 12 years. We do not find any force in this contention. The petitioners had not got the sale confirmed and after the departure of the Hindu owners the land in question had become vested in the Central Government.
5. Adverse possession could not, in law; be claimed by the petitioners against the Government merely because the are in possession of the disputed land for more than 12 years.
6. The petition in consequently dismissed as having no merit.