' JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.---The petitioner Province impugns the concurrent decrees of the learned trial Court dated 24-9-1995 and of the learned Appellate Court dated 8-9-2005, whereby a declaratory suit filed by the respondent/ plaintiff, namely, Muhammad Bukhsh has been decreed.
2. The case of the respondent was that he was an allottee of the suit-land and was in cultivating possession of the same since 1973-74. He applied for conferment of proprietary rights in the suit- land on the basis of a Notification No, 3215-79/ 3973C-II, dated 3-9-1979 wherein the policy of the Government rights in respect of State land. The defence set up by the petitioner Province was that under para. 2(iv)(b) of the aforesaid notification,' the suit-land fell within the belt in respect of which proprietary rights could not be conferred. In order to appreciate the defence so set up, the relevant part of para, 2 of the notification is to be produced as under:- "2. Exception and reservations. - Unless it is otherwise specifically provided, the following lands shall be deemed to have' been expressly excluded, from every grant under these conditions:-
(i) .............................
(ii) .....................
(iii) ................
(iv) Lands lying within a belt. Of:
(v) ...........................
(a) .....................
(b) five miles running along and on the outer side of the outer limits of a municipality. "
4. Based on the above, the learned Law Officer argued that the prohibited area has to be ascertained by first determining the outer limits of a municipality. It is contended by him that the outer limits, of Sargodha municipality, which is the relevant municipality, were not determined by the learned courts below. It was further contended that the respondent/plaintiff was obliged to first prove the location of the outer limits of the municipality and it was only after such limits had been established that the five mile limit, set out in the notification could be ascertained. [2] document it is clear that the suit property fell outside the five mile belt referred to in the Notification dated 3-9- 1979.' Learned counsel for the respondent rightly contended that the aforesaid documents was prepared by the functionaries of the Province and had also been tendered in evidence by the petitioners/defendants. In the circumstances the onus of proving that the suit-land fell within the prohibited area, shifted on the petitioners but they failed to discharge the same.
5. The contention of learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff is well-founded. The learned Courts below have duly appraised the evidence on record including Exh.D.7 while decreeing the suit of the respondent/plaintiff. The impugned decrees as such are unexceptionable being consistent with the record. Furthermore, learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to advert to any such jurisdictional error or other legal infirmity in the impugned judgments which would justify interference therein while exercising revisional jurisdiction. In these circumstances, I find no merit in this petition which is, therefore, dismissed.