MUHAMMAD AKHTAR SHABBIR, J.---This order will dispose of Writ Petitions Nos.18630 of 2005 and 18631 of 2005 as common question of law and facts are involved in both these writ petitions.
2. The facts giving rise to the filing of the present writ petitions are to the effect that Ahmad Din respondent No.1 in both the writ petitions had filed separate suits for recovery of produce of `Hisa Batai' against Barkat Ali present petitioner amounting to Rs.4,257 and Rs.2,928 for Rabi and Kharif 1997-1998 before the Revenue Court/Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Narowal with regard to Khasras Nos.933/2 and 954/1 who after recording the evidence of the parties decreed suits in favour of respondent No.1 vide his judgment and decree dated 31-5-2000.
3. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner preferred an appeal against these judgments and decrees before the A.C./Collector, Narowal who vide, his judgment and decree, dated 22-12-2000 accepted the appeal, dismissed the suit of respondent No.1. The appeal of respondent No. l had also been dismissed by the Executive District Officer (Revenue), Narowal on 21-1-2002. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent No.1 preferred separate revision petitions before the learned Member (Judicial-I), Board of Revenue, Punjab Lahore and the M.B.R. Vide his order dated 20-4-2004 accepted the revision petition setting aside the orders of Collector and the E.D.O. (Revenue) dated 21-1-2002, the order of the M.B.R. Was assailed by the present petitioner through a review petition which was dismissed by the Member (Judicial-I), Board of Revenue vide order, dated 12-9-2005. The said order has been assailed by the petitioner through the instant writ petitions.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that Barkat Ali petitioner being a co-sharer in the joint Khata was not liable to pay the `Hisa Batai' to respondent No.1 and suit was not competent before the Revenue Court. It is further contended that a co-sharer cannot claim the share of produce against another co-sharer.
5. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. It is admitted position that Ahmad Din respondent No.1 had purchased specific Khasra numbers from Muhammad Amin etc. Who were `co-sharers' in the `joint Khata' and having a long possession over the said Khasra numbers. After the purchase of the land the respondent No.1 had stepped into the shoes of the first owners who were landlord and the petitioner was a tenant at will under them.
After recording, appreciating the evidence pro and contra, the Revenue Officer/A.C.-I, had observed that the relationship of landlord and tenant exist between the parties. The Member, Board of Revenue affirmed the view of the Revenue Officer vide order, dated 20-4-2004 and 12-9-2005.
6. Section 77 of the Punjab Tenancy Act envisaged that when a Revenue Officer is exercising jurisdiction with respect to any such suit as is described in subsection (3) or with respect to an appeal or other proceeding arising out of any such suit, he shall be called a Revenue Court and the Revenue Court has exclusive jurisdiction to take cognizance or entertain suits provided in subsection (3) First Group, Second Group and Third Group. Clause (n) of Third Group of subsection
(3) envisages that suits by a landlord for arrears of rent or the money equivalent of rent, or for sums recoverable under section 14 of the Punjab Tenancy Act. Clause (o) further contemplated that suits by a landowner to recover moneys claimed as due for the enjoyment of rights in or over land or in water including rights of irrigation, rights over fisheries, rights of pasturage and forest rights. Clause (k) of the Second Group empowered the Revenue Court to entertain suits by a co- sharer in an estate or holding for a share of the profits thereof or for a settlement of accounts.
7. It means that a co-sharer can claim for his share of the profits from other co-sharer and these real tiller of the land in a joint holding, certainly if at all Barkat Ali petitioner is a co-sharer of the land in the joint Khata but he is under obligation to pay profits of the crops to the other co-sharer as per law or terms and conditions of the tenancy access to his own ownership rights. It is admitted position that Barkat Ali was tenant at will under Muhammad Amin etc. To the extent of their share and respondent No.1 who stepped into their shoes would also enjoy the same status of the landlord and the tenant (petitioner).
8. The stand taken by petitioner before the Revenue Court that he has been paying the 'Hisa Batai' to one Mst. Ramzan Bibi a co-sharer in the Khata which is in his possession over and above his own share. The respondent No.1 purchased two Khasra numbers from Muhammad Amin etc. Which were in their possession, thus, this possession would have been continued and the respondent No.1 Ahmad Din under the law was legally owner of that portion of the land under plough of the petitioner. The learned Tehsildar on the basis of the evidence rightly held that the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties and thus, decreed the plaintiff's suit which was affirmed by the Member, Board of Revenue. The Collector or the E.D.O.(R) have not based their findings on the basis of any documentary evidence. Rather they passed the orders on conjectures and surmises.
9. In this context reference can be made to the case of Faqir Muhammad v. Bashir Ahmad and 2 others 1990 ALD 1975. The other aspect of the case is that if the petitioner claimed to be the co- sharer even then his suit could have been treated as suit for rendition of accounts between the' co- sharers under section 77(3)(a) of the Punjab Tenancy Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not pointed out any illegality or jurisdictional defect in the impugned orders passed by Tehsildar as well as respondent No.2 or that the impugned order have been passed without lawful authority. It is settled proposition of law that the High Court would not sit as Court of appeal qua the judgment/order passed by the Special Tribunal. Reference in this context can be made to the case of Muhammad Hussain Munir and others v. Sikandar and others PLD 1974 SC 139 and Sub.
Muhammad Asghar v. Mst. Safia Begum and another PLD 1976 SC 435.
10. The matter pertains to the question of facts determined by the Revenue Court as well as the Member, Board of Revenue after evaluating the evidence of the parties and in such-like cases the High Court would be reluctant to interfere with their findings as laid down in the cases of Benedict F.D Souza v. Karachi Building Control Authority and 3 others 1989 SCM R 918; Federation of Pakistan and 2 others v. Major (Rtd.) Muhammad Sabir Khan PLD 1991 SC 476 and Muhammad Younas Khan v. Government of N.-W.F.P. Through Secretary and others 1993 SCM R 618.
11. For the foregoing reasons these writ petitions being devoid of any force are dismissed in limine.