JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.----The petitioner Amanat Ali filed a suit seeking permanent injunction to restrain the respondents/ defendants from interfering in his possession of land measuring 6 Marlas, 9 Sarsahis. The land is situated in Shamlat Deh. Amanat All is one of the owners in the Shamlat and claims to be in possession of the property in his own right.
2. The Assistant Commissioner (respondent No.1) has submitted a written statement in which it has been acknowledged that the petitioner is one of the owners in the village. It has merely been stated that he is not the exclusive owner of the suit-land. The remaining defendants, who are respondents Nos.2 to 12 in this petition, submitted in their written statement that they had been allotted land in the village under the 7 Marlas Scheme for non-proprietors issued by the Government under section 3 of the Punjab Jinnah Abadies for Non-proprietors in Rural Areas Act, 1986. The fact that the petitioner is in possession of the suit- land, has not been denied by the respondents. They merely assert that they are entitled to possession under the aforesaid scheme.
3. The learned Courts below have dismissed the suit filed by the petitioner on the ground that the land in dispute had been allotted to the respondents Nos.2 to 12 under the above-referred scheme.
Learned counsel contends that the decrees of the learned trial Court dated 28-4-1993 and of the learned Appellate Court dated 17-1-2001 are contrary to the record and the law. It is argued that the petitioner, being owner in his own right, is in possession of the suit-land and is residing in a house constructed thereon. This land, as such, could not possibly have been allotted to the respondents Nos.2 to 12.
4. Learned counsel has also referred to section 5 of the Punjab Jinnah Abadies for Non-Proprietors in Rural Areas Act, wherein title in and allotted thereunder can only be conveyed after construction has been raised by the allottee and he has fulfilled the other conditions of allotment. In the present case, since the petitioner is in possession of the suit-land and is residing therein, there is no question of any title vesting in the private respondents.
5. On the above basis, it is argued that the petitioner was entitled to the permanent injunction claimed by him. The learned trial Court has proceeded on the premises that the petitioner has manoeuvered to get his name recorded in the Khasra Girdawari in respect of the suit-land.
Learned counsel submits that this is a result of misreading of the record because the names of the petitioner and his father Barkat Ali appear in the Revenue Record and even the Assistant Commissioner (respondent No.1) has acknowledged that the petitioner is an owner in the village.
The Jamabandi for the year 1984-85 (Exh.P.1) supports the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the petitioner.
6. The Assistant Commissioner (respondent No.1) is represented but is not a contesting party inasmuch as the written statement submitted on his behalf, in essence, admitted the stance adopted by the petitioner. The other respondents Nos.2 to 15 have been proceeded against ex pane. Irshad Ahmed (respondent No.l6) is represented by counsel but none has appeared on his behalf although the case has been repeatedly called at intervals. In the circumstances, the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner/plaintiff, noted above, have remained uncontroverted. The record has also been seen by me which supports the petitioner's contention that he is entitled to the property in the Shamlat Deh in his own right.
7. In the foregoing circumstances, I find that the learned Courts below have seriously misread the record and in particular, have failed to consider the Khasra Girdawari and the Jamabandi for the year 1984-85 (Exh.P. I) showing the petitioner's right in the suit property. In the circumstances, the impugned decrees of the learned trial Court dated 28-4-1993 and of the learned Appellate Court dated 17-1-2001 arc not legally sustainable. The same are, therefore, set aside. As a result, the suit of the petitioner/plaintiff is decreed as prayed for.