' MUHAMMAD KHALID MEHMOOD KHAN, J.---This revision petition has been filed against judgment and decree, dated 24-11-2009 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bhakkar whereby judgment and decree, dated 4-1-2007 passed by the learned trial Court was affirmed.
2. Briefly the facts of the case are that one Muhammad Rafique son of Jinda filed a suit against Province of the Punjab through Collector, for declaration to the effect, that he is owner in possession as 'Adria Malak' of agricultural land measuring 72K, described in the head note of the plaint, and order, dated 9-5-2009 passed by the learned Member, Board of Revenue is illegal, against the law, and facts. It was, thus, prayed that the decree for permanent injunction be passed, restraining, the defendants permanently from interfering into his possession.
3. The plaintiff averred that he is owner in possession of land subject-matter of suit and constructed rooms thereon. He further asserted that defendant No,2 never been in possession of land, however, with the collusion of the Revenue Field Staff, he obtained land in dispute through tender in the year, 1981 but in spite of the said tender, the petitioner remained in possession of the suit-land. The tender order was kept :ocret from the plaintiff and defendant No,2 in collusion with defendant No,1 obtained proprietary rights of the suit-land on 22-1-1996 and 16-4-1996. On coming to the acknowledge of the transfer of proprietary rights, the petitioner moved an application to respondent No,1, Collector, claming that respondent No,2 is a landowner and owns a have land and such he is not entitled to law for any allotment. The petitioner is in actual physical possession of the suit-land. The said application was dismissed by the Collector on 9-6-1996. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Sargodha which was allowed vide order, dated 6-10-1998.
Respondent No,2 assailed the said order before the Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab who allowed the revision petition.
4. Both the respondents resisted the suit and filed separate written statements. Respondent No,1 submitted that the allotment is perfectly in accordance with law. The petitioner never remained in possession of the land in dispute, likewise, respondent No,2 claimed that the petitioner has never been in possession of the suit-land. He obtained the land through open tender in the year, 1981 and from then, the allotment in his favour was renewed from time to time and ultimately the land was transferred in his favour in the year, 1955 vide notification of Government of the Punjab. He paid the entire price of land in dispute and as such he became the absolute owner of the suit-land.
5. Out of the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:-- "ISSUES:
(1) Whether the plaintiff is Adna Malik and in possession of suit property as Basharah Malikan Bawaja Noture? OPP
(2) Whether order, dated 9-8-2000 passed by Member, Board of Revenue is against law and facts, void, result of fraud, collusion without jurisdiction, ineffective upon the rights of plaintiffs and liable to be set aside? OPP
(3) Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action and locus standi to file this suit? OPD
(4) Whether the plaintiff estopped by his words and conduct to file hic suit? 011
(5) Whether the suit is not maintainable in its present form? OPD
(6) Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try this suit? OPD
(7) Whether the suit is false, frivolous and vexatious and defendants are entitled to special costs?
OPD
(8) Relief."
6. Both the parties adduced their respective evidence oral as well as documentary and the learned trial Court vide judgment and decree, dated 4-10-2007 dismissed the suit. The petitioner filed appeal which too failed, hence the present petition.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned judgments and decrees of both the Courts below are liable to be set aside being contrary to the facts and applicable law. He further submits that the impugned judgments and decrees of both the Courts below suffer from misreading and non-reading of record. The orders passed by the Revenue Officers and Member, Board of Revenue, are contrary to the statutory provisions and the proprietary rights of the suit- land have wrongly been transferred to the respondent. The learned Courts below have failed to appreciate that the petitioner is in uninterrupted possession, of the suit-land. He further contended that if it is assumed that proprietary rights were rightly transferred to the defendant, even then the transfer to the extent of 19-K 14-M by the Board of Revenue to the respondents is against law.
8. Learned counsel for the respondents supports the judgments and decrees of both the Courts below.
9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their assistance.
10. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner is continuously agitating the matter of ownership up-till Board of Revenue, but failed to prone any evidence showing that the respondent being the land owner of huge land is not entitled in law for the transfer of proprietary rights of suite-land. The plaintiff/petitioner has failed to produce any documentary or oral evidence before the learned Courts below showing that he was and is in physical possession of the suit-land. The impugned order of Member, Board of Revenue, dated 9-5-2000 shows that land measuring 19-K 14-M was transferred to the respondent on market price because it was in his possession. Had the plaintiff been in possession of the suit property and his possession was proved before the Member, Board of Revenue the Member, Board of Revenue could not transfer the proprietary rights of State land to a respondent, on the failure of petitioner to establish his physical possession over the property, the Member, Board of Revenue rightly transferred the property rights of the State land measuring 19-K 14-M on market price to respondent. The petitioner has miserably failed to establish the allegation of collusion between the respondents. It has been proved on record that respondent No,2 was owner of less than 4 acres at the relevant time, therefore, according to law, he was entitled for the transfer of proprietary rights of State land in his favour. Further that the land was transferred in his favour on prevailing market price so no concession or favour was given to the respondent. In these circumstances, the petitioner has failed to prove collusion or malpractice between the respondents which caused loss to the petitioner. The findings of fact of both the Courts below are concurrent and as such, in the revisional jurisdiction, this Court cannot interfere even if this Court came to the conclusion after scanning of evidence, a different conclusion can be drawn. Hence the petition is Dismissed with no order as to costs.