' SYED SAKHI HUSSAIN BOKHARI, J.-Muhammad Riaz etc. Have filed this revision petition against the judgment, dated 11-7-2002 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Toba Tek Singh whereby appeal filed by petitioners against the judgment and decree, dated 30-10-2001 passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Toba Tek Singh was dismissed.
2. The relevant facts for the disposal of this revision petition are that petitioners filed a suit for declaration to the effect that they were owners in possession of Plot No.38.(Min) and they were entitled to raise construction over the same and that defendant (Town Committee Peer Mehal) could not cancel their site-plan. Also that order passed by the defendant regarding cancellation of map was illegal and void.
3. The petitioners stated that they were owners in possession of suit property (plot measuring 5-1/2 marlas, Khasra No.38 (Mian) situated in Mohallah Kausarabad, Peer Mehal) and Mutation No. 4063 was also sanctioned in their favour on 10-5-1992. They further stated that defendant intended to dispossess them illegally, therefore they (petitioners/plaintiffs) had filed a suit for declaration against defendant on 9-3-1994 with was decreed in their favour vide judgment, dated 19-7-1994.
The plaintiffs mentioned that they had inadvertently mentioned Plot No.37 (Min) instead of Plot No.38 (Min.) in the said suit. The petitioners maintained that they submitted site-plan before respondent for approval on 3-8-1994 but the respondent did not inform them about cancellation of the same within 30 days. The plaintiffs stated that when they intended to raise construction, the defendant-respondent started interference whereupon they came to know that respondent- defendant had cancelled their site-plan, therefore, they were constrained to file suit against the defendant.
4. The defendant mentioned in written statement that the plaintiffs were owners of Plot No.37 (Min.) but through fraud they intended to get sanctioned map of Plot No.38 (Min.). Also that it was illegal because they had no right about Plot No.38 (Min.). They further mentioned that plaintiffs had earlier filed suit regarding Plot No.37 (Min.) but they submitted map for Plot No.38 (Min.), therefore, the same was cancelled.
5. Learned trial Court recorded evidence of parties and suit brought by plaintiffs-petitioners was dismissed vide judgment and decree, dated 30-10-2001. The petitioners filed appeal against the said judgment and decree but the same too met with the same fate was their appeal was dismissed on 11-7-2002. Hence this revision petition.
6. I have heard the arguments and perused the record.
7. As mentioned above, the case of petitioners-plaintiffs is that they are owners of Plot No.38 (Min), therefore, respondent-defendant could not cancel their site-plan. However, case of respondent (Town Committee Peer Mehal) is that petitioners-plaintiffs are owners of Plot No.37 (Min) and they intended to get approved site-plan regarding Khasra No.38 (Min) through fraud, therefore, respondent had rightly cancelled the same. Admittedly, respondent-defendant allotted plot measuring 5-1/2 marlas bearing Khasra No.37 (Min) to petitioners-plaintiffs on 10-3-1991 and Mutation No.4063 was accordingly sanctioned in their favour on 10-5-1992. The record shows that later on plaintiffs filed suit for declaration against the respondent and claimed that they were owners of plot measuring 5-1/2 marlas bearing Khasra No.37 (Min) situated in Mohallah Kausarabad, Peer Mehal Town and the same was decided in their favour vide judgment, dated 19- 7-1994. As such it is clear that they are owners of Khasra No. 37 (Min.). However, as mentioned above they had applied for sanction of map regarding Khasra No.38 (Min.). It shows that their application was baseless. So respondent had rightly refused to approve site-plan of Plot No.38 (Min.).
8. It is pertinent to note that Miraj Din, plaintiff while appearing as P.W.4 admitted during cross- examination that Committee had executed sale-deed in their favour regarding Khasra No.37 (Min.).. He also admitted that they had submitted site-plan regarding Khasra No.38 (Min.). It too shows that their claim is baseless. The respondent-defendant examined Munir Ahmad, Head Clerk as D.. W.1. He clearly stated that plaintiffs had applied for sanction of map regarding Plot No.38 (Min.) but they were owners of the same because they (plaintiffs) were owners of Plot No.37 (Min), therefore, they had not sanctioned their site-plan. He further stated that they had informed the plaintiffs about the same vide Notice No.272/5, dated 25-9-1994 but they did not file appeal before competent authority within 30 days. The witness also deposed that plaintiffs were not owners of Plot No.38 (Min.), therefore, they were not entitled to get sanctioned site-plan about the same. The plaintiffs too admit that they are not owners of Plot No.38 (Min.). In these circumstances, I find that claim of petitioners-plaintiffs is baseless. As such, learned trial Court had rightly dismissed their suit.
9. The perusal of judgment, dated 11-7-2002 shows that learned Additional District Judge had decided appeal brought by petitioners after evaluating the entire material available on record.
There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment. So there is no justification to disturb the concurrent findings recorded by the learned Courts below.
10. Resultantly, this revision petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed.