Since in both the revision petitions common question of law and facts are involved, therefore, through this single judgment I intend to dispose of both these petitions.
2. Briefly stated facts as those emerge out of this petition are that the petitioners were allotted certain lands against Cultivation scheme during the year 1962 on lease, which were not subsequently extended. Feeling aggrieved whereof they approached authorities in the Revenue Department and after remaining unsuccessful there from they filed civil suit seeking declaration before the learned Civil Judge, Sahiwal which were dismissed vide impugned judgments and decrees dated 14.1.1988 where against appeals were preferred which were too dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, vide judgment and decree dated 8.2.2000 in civil revision, which are being assailed through separate civil revision, in both the revision petitions.
3. It is inter alia contended by Sardar Riaz Kareem, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner with reference to para 10 of the impugned judgment that the learned Civil Judge misread the evidence on record, and committed illegality by observing that after lapse of five years period of time, the petitioner was not entitled for extention under the law, which is in conflict with the notification issued by the Government, vide which no extention was required because the Government has in categorical terms held that extention in lease rights was applicable to six years prior to year 1993 and it stood automatically expired; the observations of the learned Civil Judge not only are against facts but also against the law applicable to the case as well; the learned Civil Judge has misread the terms of temporary lease; "Places reliance upon PLD 1976 S.C 435, PLD 1975 Lahore 445, to canvass that the statement of condition has the force of law. Since the lease rights were given to the petitioner not treating him as temporary, therefore requirement of extention after five years is not correct; although the learned Civil Judge in the impugned judgment in Para No, 9 thereof has noted down specifically objection raised by the petitioner, to the effect that order passed by the Collector was ab-initio void and of no legal effect violative of Section 163 (2-D) Land Revenue Act; the order passed by the Member Board of Revenue being a superstructure built on void order have to fall on the ground; reliance placed upon 2007 SCMR 8181 (M) yet the objection has not been attended to by the learned Civil Judge which makes the impugned judgment a case of non- reading. Adverting to the impugned judgment passed by the learned Additional District Judge refers to Para No, 13 thereof and submits that since the learned Additional District Judge has not decided the case issue wise, therefore, this sole ground makes the impugned order null and void in the eye of law. Places reliance upon 1996 S.C.M.R 669, refers to Order 41, Rule 31 of the CPC to canvass that the learned Additional Judge should have given issue-wise finding and should have announced the judgment after putting signature thereon and that in that the case was remanded to the learned Additional District Judge for rewriting the judgment. It is in the interest of justice that land laws losses instead of accommodating. Places reliance upon NLR 1995 Revenue 100.
4. Conversely Mr. Muhammad Ramzan Khalid Joiya, Advocate learned counsel for private respondents in both the civil revisions submits that there are concurrent findings of facts and in revisional jurisdiction there is very limited scope for this Court for interference, places reliance upon PLJ 1986 S.C 149, 1997 SCM R 526, 1986 SCM R 412; dispute primarily between the parties relates to lease right which is exclusive domain of Revenue Authorities; Relies upon 1985 CLC 7962, 1987 CLC 204, refers to the order dated 09.03.1994 passed by Member Colonies Board of Revenue, wherein it is categorically observed, that land in-question was meant for Tube-Well Sinking Scheme, therefore, could not be allotted to the present petitioner under temporary cultivation scheme. The learned Civil Judge did not make any observation of his own rather those were based upon the orders passed by the Competent Authority in Revenue hierarchy of the country; in revenue record the petitioners have admittedly been shown as illegal occupant. Adds that most of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner related to such documents which are not part of the record; neither those were raised before the learned Civil Court nor before the learned appellate Court, therefore, for the first time before this Court in revisional jurisdiction, cannot be allowed to be agitated. The petitioner has wrongly tried to take advantage of notification of the year 1995, the suit was filed, on 24.03.1994, therefore, the said notification has no application because it cannot have retrospective application. So, for as objection qua writing of judgment issue wise is concerned, that too has not been raised even in the revision petition it has been introduced for the first time in the arguments.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. I find that the learned counsel for the petitioners has mostly referred to such documents which are not part of the record. Some of his submissions have been introduced for the first time while arguing this revision petition. Sufficient evidence on the record is available to demonstrate that the land in-question was meant for tube well sinking schemes which under the law could not be allotted to the petitioners under temporary cultivation scheme. By now it is well settled law that policy making is within the exclusive domain of the executive which in normal course cannot be interfered by the Courts unless the same is in-conflict either with some provisions of law of the land or against the provisions of constitution. Even otherwise I do not find any wrong with the said policy which is in the interest of public-at-large. There are concurrent findings of facts and law against the petitioners, wherein no mis-reading or non-reading has even been pointed out. In revisional jurisdiction this Court cannot interfere in the concurrent findings of facts arrived at by learned Courts below merely on the ground that another opinion possibly can be formed which the law does not permit. I have also minutely examined the case law referred by the learned counsel for the petitioner. I may respectfully submit that the same do not apply in view of peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. To the contrary cited at bar the case law, by Mr. Muhammad Ramzan Khalid Joyia, Advocate, in my considered view is fully attracted and while respectfully following the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in 1997 SCM R 526, 1998 SCMR 412. I hold that these petitions are not maintainable. I am not even otherwise inclined to interfere in the concurrent findings of facts arrived at by both the learned Courts below, which are not only well reasoned, besides are perfectly in accordance with law. These petitions, therefore, being devoid of any merits are hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.