1. ' AMANULLAH KHAN YASINZAI, C.J.--- This civil revision under section 115, C.P.C. Is directed against the judgment and decree dated 27-9-2007 and 7-6-2008, passed by learned Senior Civil Judge-II, Quetta and Additional District Judge-IV, Quetta respectively, whereby the suit filed by predecessor- in-interest of respondents and respondents 2 and 4 was decreed and the appeal filed by petitioners was dismissed.
2. ' Concisely, the facts leading to filing of instant petition are that, predecessor-in-interest of respondents and respondents 2 and 4, filed a suit for declaration, consequential relief and permanent injunction, with the averments that, they own agricultural property in Mahal and Mouza Khush Kaba Sariab, Tappa Shadanzai, Tehsil and District Quetta, and adjacent to their lands, there are lands bearing Khata No.80/134 Min bearing Khasra Nos.595 to 706 and 941 and 977 to 1085 (181 Qittas) total measuring 1331 Rods and 0 Pol. The said property was transferred in their name vide Intiqal No.157. The said lands consisted upon small pieces of land adjoining each other and were waste and Barren lands. The predecessor-in-interest of respondents and respondents 2 and 4 came in possession of these lands about 40/50 years back and by spending lacs of Rupees and by endless efforts, they succeeded in developing and converting the lands from barren to cultivable lands. Thereafter the respondents approached the then Deputy Commissioner with the plea that, since they have done "Nautor" and have developed the lands and are also paying "Usher", therefore, the said lands be transferred in their name. The said plea was accepted and on 22-12- 1991, the predecessorin-interest of respondents and respondents 2 and 4 were recorded as "Mauroosi Bazgars" in the record of rights. After the lands were entered in their names, their possession remained undisturbed and in 2000 the predecessor-in-interest of respondents and respondents 2 and 4 came to know that entries in the record of rights have been cancelled from their name and entered in the name of Government .Of Balochistan. On checking the record, it was revealed that the entries were cancelled in view of the Notification, dated 6th December, 1995 and the Balochistan Cancellation of Illegal Allotments of Land Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1996). It was stated that after cancellation of mutation, the respondents had been approaching petitioners, but they refused to reverse the mutation, thus, the above .Suit was filed, with the following relief:--- ' It is, therefore, prayed that a decree may kindly be passed in favour of plaintiffs and against defendants in the following terms:---
(a) Declaring that plaintiffs are the lawfully recorded "Mauroosi Bazgars" in possession of lands in dispute.
(b) Declaring that order, dated 12-10-2000 whereby defendant No.2 cancelled the Intiqal Nos.157 and 216 is illegal, void and without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
(c) Declaring that the Notification No.180-14/93-Rev., dated 6-12-1995 has no application on the revenue entries i.e. Itiqal Nos.157 and 216 of lands in dispute in the names of plaintiffs.
(d) By means of consequential relief the revenue entries vide Intiqal Nos.157 and 216 may be directed to be restored.
(e) By means of permanent injunction defendants may be directed to refrain from resuming possession of lands in dispute from plaintiffs.
(f) Costs of proceedings may also be awarded to plaintiffs against defendants.
3. ' The suit was contested by petitioners on legal and factual grounds. It was mainly asserted that, mutation was cancelled in view of the Notification dated 6th December, 1995 and the Act of 1996.
4. Out of the pleadings of parties, following issues were framed for determination:--- The issues
(1) Whether the suit of plaintiffs is not maintainable in view of P.Os. "1", "3" of W/S?
(2) Whether the Notification No.180-14/93 Rev., dated 6-12-1995, applies to lands in dispute and cancellation of allotment of disputed lands from the name of plaintiffs is legal by means of order, dated 19-12-1995, by defendant No.2?
(3) Whether plaintiffs are in possession of lands in dispute for last 40/50 years, as Mauroosi Bazgars?
(4) Whether plaintiffs are entitled to the(sic)?
(5) Relief.
5. ' The respondents-plaintiffs in support of their plea produced the following witnesses:--- ' P. W. 1 Haji Rozi Khan, P. W. 2 Ghulam Dastagir, P. W.3 Haji Kamal Khan, P.W.4 Ghulam Qadir, P.W.5 Syed Arshad Ali, Attorney, P. W .6 Bashir Ahmed, P. W .7 Abdul Salam, P. W.8 Amir Jan and P.W.9 Muhammad Siddique.
6. ' In rebuttal petitioners-defendants examined D. W.1 Abdullah Jan and D.W.2 Muhammad Siddique, Saddar Qanoongo.
7. ' It may be pointed out that initially the suit was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 14-4- 2006. Being dissatisfied, the respondents filed an appeal, which came up for hearing before the learned Additional District Judge-IV, Quetta. After hearing arguments, the appeal was partly allowed and case was remanded to trial Court. In the meanwhile the predecessor-in-interest of respondents Pir Zainuddin Agha died, thus the respondents-plaintiffs 1, 3 and 5 to 7 were impleaded in the suit. After remand, the learned Senior Civil Judge-II, Quetta decreed the suit in favour of plaintiffs-respondents vide judgment, dated 27-9-2007. Being aggrieved from the same, the petitioners filed an appeal before the learned District Judge, which was transferred on the file of learned Additional District Judge-IV, Quetta, who vide judgment and decree dated 7-6-2008 dismissed the same. Hence this petition.
8. ' I have heard Mr. Nasrullah Khan Achakzai, learned Additional Advocate-General for the petitioners and Mr. Arshad Chaudhry, learned counsel for the respondents.
9. ' Learned Additional Advocate-General contended that; both the Courts below have erred in decreeing the suit as the case of respondents fell within the four corners of Notification dated 5th December, 1995 and the Act of 1996, therefore, in view of the same, the mutation entries were rightly cancelled by the Revenue Department. Learned Additional Advocate-General vehemently argued that the Courts below have misread and mis-appreciated the evidence on record, and came to a conclusion, which is extraneous to record and further argued that, there are various illegalities and irregularities, on the basis of which the impugned judgment is not sustainable.
10. ' Learned counsel for the respondents, emphatically argued as under: ---
(A) In the first place, the provisions of the Act of 1996 and the Notification, dated 5th December, 1995, were not applicable to the case of respondents, as the land was not allotted to them, but their names were only entered as "Mauroosi Bazgars" in the property in dispute, on the basis of their possession.
(B) The cancellation order, dated 12-10-2006 was passed in violation of the principle of natural justice.
(C) There are concurrent findings of facts arrived at, after proper appreciation of evidence, thus this Court while exercising powers under section 115, C.P.C. Has limited scope to enter into the same, unless there is a jurisdictional defect or the judgments are perverse and based on no evidence.
(D) Substantial justice has been done, therefore, this Court may not exercise powers under section 115, C.P.C., as the respondents had developed the land after spending huge amount of money and time and the same were throughout in their possession, thus, they were entitled to retain the same.
11. ' Coming to the contention of learned Additional Advocate-General regarding cancellation of the land from the name of respondents on the basis of the Notification dated 5th December, 1995 and the provisions of the Act of 1996; it may be observed that, it is the case of respondents, that they were in possession of the land in dispute for last many decades and after spending huge amount, it was developed and turned into a cultivable land. In this regard the statements of P.Ws. Are very important. P.W.7 Abdul Salam, Senior Clerk, Irrigation Department produced documents Exhs.P.41 to 48, indicating therein, the amounts deposited for use of bulldozers and further names of the drivers are also mentioned, who brought the bulldozers to the land and levelled the same. P.W.8 Amir Jan and P.W.9 Muhammad Siddique tendered documents Exhs.P.49 and 50 and 51 to 57 respectively, indicating the payment of "Usher" made by the respondents in respect of the land in dispute.
12. However, D.W.2, Muhammad Siddique tendered document Exh.D.2 which shows that the land in dispute was recorded in the name of respondents. The statement of said witnesses have not been disputed by the petitioner, which shows that the land in dispute was adjacent to the settled lands of respondents, who developed the same, by "Nautor" and turned it into cultivable land and then applied for recording their names as "Mauroosi Bazgars" thus it was not an abrupt entry in the record of rights and ownership rights were not transferred in the names of respondents, and they were only entered as "Mauroosi Bazgars".- The contention of learned counsel for respondents has substance that the notification and the Act of 1996, were not applicable to the case of respondents.
13. It would be relevant to refer to section 3 of the Act of 1996, and the operative portion of Notification, which reads as under:--- "Now, therefore, with prior approval of Government of Balochistan and in exercise of powers vested in it, the Board of Revenue, Balochistan hereby directs immediate cancellation of all titles/rights/interests acquired directly or indirectly through the process of settlement work started with effect from Board of Revenue, Balochistan's Notification No.180-14/84-Rev, dated 28-10-1986 and consequently through notification No.180- 14/Rev., dated 9-11-1987. This will, however, have no effect on legitimate titles/rights/interests acquired earlier than 28th October, 1986 in respect of all area under settlement operation after the above date and all valid transactions made by land- owners and their successors in interest in respect of lands validly owned by them. The Revenue Record prepared by settlement staff is transferred to Deputy Commissioner/Collector, Quetta District with immediate effect for necessary entries in the relevant record and resumption of State land in accordance with rights and titles in relevant record before issuance of the above said notification."
14. ' As observed hereinabove the land in dispute was not allotted to respondents, but they were only entered as "Mauroosi Bazgars" after due process of enquiry.
15. ' Coming to the next contention of learned counsel for respondents that, after passing of the Notification and the enactment of the Act of 1996, the land in dispute, which was admittedly in possession of respondents, was deliberately cancelled, without giving any notice or initiating enquiry. In view of the fact that the respondents had developed the land in dispute, installed tube- wells, constructed houses for labour, which fact is indicative from the statements of P.Ws.1 to 3, who stated that the respondents were in possession of the land in dispute, since last 40 years; thus it can safely be held that the cancellation order was passed without jurisdiction and in violation of the principle of natural justice.
16. ' Adverting to the next contention that, since there are concurrent findings of ficts arrived at by the Courts below, thus, this Court while exercising revisional jurisdiction under section 115, C.P.C. Cannot interfere in the findings of fact. It is a settled principle of law that while exercising powers under section 115, C.P.C., the Court has to satisfy itself that, subordinate Courts had jurisdiction to try the case and had exercised the same rightly, and that, while exercising jurisdiction, the Court had not acted legally or in breach of any provision of law or with material irregularity, and if the Court is satisfied that the aforesaid criteria has been met with by the Courts below then the High Court shall not interfere, even if it differs with the findings of subordinate Courts on the question of law or facts. Reference may be made to NS. Venkatagiri Ayyunger's case PLD 1949 PC 26. In my considered opinion, the Courts below have arrived at a conclusion, after proper appreciation of evidence.
17. ' The only ground agitated by the learned Additional Advocate-General was that mutation entries were cancelled in view of the Notification and the Act-of 1996, which contention was rightly repelled by the Courts below, giving cogent reasons for the same, it may be observed that, it is settled principle of law that High Court while sitting in revisional jurisdiction will not interfere in the concurrent findings of facts arrived at by the Courts below, unless it is established that the IF Courts below have passed the judgment without jurisdiction or have committed material illegality, irregularity or impropriety. Reference may be made to 2005 SCM R 135. Since the learned Additional Advocate-General could not point out any illegality or irregularity committed by the Courts below, thus the findings being unexceptionable do not warrant interference.
18. ' It may be observed that in the case in hand, the respondents were in possession of the land in dispute and they have developed the same with the passage of time by spending huge amount and applied for entering their names as "Mauroosi Bazgars" and the Revenue Authorities after inspection of the land and conducting enquiry, after being satisfied, entered their names as "Mauroosi Bazgars" and further, they have been developing the land in question, constructing houses and installing tube-wells, without any objection, thus, the Courts below have done substantial justice, and no interference is called.
19. ' As a result, the petition being devoid of substance is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs #EndJudgment