' FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.--- Both these petitions for leave to appeal are directed against a common judgment, dated 22-10-2001, passed by the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, in Regular. Second Appeal No,22 of 1988 and Civil Revision No,42-D of 1988.
2. The respondent No,1 Muhammad Siddique, instituted a civil suit on 30-6-1975 against the petitioners, by possession of Ihata No,60-D measuring 8 Marlas and 7 Sars,ai situated in Mandi Hasilpur, District Bahawalpur. He stated therein that he had purchased the property in dispute against the highest bid of rs,.8,400 through public auction held by the Settlement Department on 24-12-1969 and a P.T.D. Dated 15-5-1970 had also been issued in his favour. The petitioner also filed a suit for declaration for declaring the suit property to be a non-evacuee and that the Settlement Department had no jurisdiction to transfer the same in favour of the said respondent.
3. The trial Court, after consolidating both the suits, recording evidence of the parties, by judgment and decree, dated 29-1-1986, dismissed the suit of the respondent No,1 and decreed the suit of the petitioners,. The respondent No,1 filed two separate appeals thereagainst which were dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Bahawalpur, by judgment dated 12-12-1987. Thereafter, the respondent preferred R.S.A. No,22 of 1988 and Civil Revision No,42-D of 1988 which were allowed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, by the impugned judgment, dated 22-10-2001. Consequently, the suit filed by the petitioners, was dismissed and the one instituted by the respondent No,1 was decreed. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners, argued that the suit property, having not been declared as evacuee property at any stage before firs,t day of January, 1957, could be treated as such for the firs,t time in the year 1969. In the year 1950-51, the property 60-D was shown to be in the name of Sardar Daulat Madar and Maqbooza Sarkar in the Jamabandi Sakni Ihatajat Qasba Mandi Hasilpur.
However, no certificate was issued by the Settlement Commissioner that the said Ihata was a non- Muslim evacuee. It was further argued that the High Court fell into error in interfering with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the two Courts, in exercise of its jurisdiction under section 100, C.P.C.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, at some length. We find that the suit property was always treated to be evacuee property which was duly purchased by respondent No,1 namely Muhammad Siddique, from the Settlement Department through public auction and P.T.D.
Was also issued in his favour. The question as to the property being declared non-evacuee could not be gone into by the civil Court in the absence of any exceptional circumstances. Such a power was exercisable by the Custodian/Deputy Custodian in terms of section 22(41) of the Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Act XII of 1957, at the relevant time. Reference may usefully be made to the case of Azizuddin v. Muhammad Ismail and others, 1985 SCM R 666. A Needless to say that presumption of correctness is attached to the official acts. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court was justified in interfering with the findings as recorded by the two Courts below. Ordinarily, this Court is not expected to substitute its findings of fact for those of the High Court unless they suffer from misreading or non-reading of evidence or if the same are violative of any principle of law. The impugned judgment does not suffer from any legal infirmity so as to warrant interference by this Court. This is not a fit case for grant of leave to appeal.
6. For the foregoing reasons we do not find any merit in these petitions which are dismissed and leave to appeal is refused accordingly.