' JAVED IQBAL, J.---This petition for leave to appeal is directed ,against order dated 11-2-2005 passed by learned single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in chambers whereby the Revision Petition preferred on behalf of petitioners has been dismissed.
2. Precisely stated the facts of the case as enumerated in the order impugned are "that the land in question was allotted to the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, late Ali Muhammad on 23- 10-1952 as is evident from R/L-II, which was cancelled on 19-8-1957 by A.R.C.(L), thereafter an appeal was filed against the said order, which was accepted by the authority and the case was remanded and allotment of the appellants was restored on 19-4-1961. Thereafter, Nizam Din being aggrieved filed an appeal against the said order which was dismissed by the authority on 19-7- 1961. Subsequently, a revision petition was also filed by him which was also dismissed on 22-9- 1961. The respondents submitted an application before the Revenue Authority for redemption of land in question measuring 11 kanal and 16 marlas, which is situated in Khasra Nos.2319 and 2320.
The predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners filed an application to be impleaded them as party before the Revenue Authority and respondents also filed an application which was accepted by Revenue Authority on 18-12-1994 thereafter the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners filed an appeal which was dismissed vide order dated 15-4-1.996. Thereafter, revision petition filed by the petitioners, was also dismissed by the M.B.R. The petitioners being aggrieved filed a. Suit for declaration with permanent injunction in the Court of Civil Judge 1st Class, Sheikhupura on 3-11- 1996 challenging the Mutation sanctioned on 15-7-1996 and order of the Revenue authority on the application of the respondents. The contents of plaint reveal that the suit property measuring 35 kanals and 12 marlas bearing Khasra Nos.2315 and 2316 was allotted to the predecessor-in- interest of the petitioners (Ali Muhammad) who took possession of the property in question which was confirmed in his name vide R/L-II, which was subsequently cancelled on 19-8-1957 by A.R.C.
(L), who filed an appeal against the said order which was accepted and case was remanded. The allotment of the petitioners was restored on 19-4-1961 against which Nizam Din filed an appeal which was dismissed on 19-7-1961. The revision petition was also filed by the Settlement Commissioner, which was also dismissed on 22-9-1961. The respondents filed an application before the Assistant Commissioner for redemption of mortgage of the property in question measuring 11 kanals which is situated in Khasra Nos.2319 and 2320 on the ground that the property in question had been mortgaged and the respondents wanted to redemption which was accepted on 18-12-1994. The appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed on 15-4-1996. The revision petition was also dismissed on 22-9-1996. The contents of plaint further reveal that the petitioners were in possession of the property in question. The orders passed by the Revenue Authorities were illegal, void and the same be set aside. The respondents filed written statement controverting the allegation levelled in the plaint." The learned trial Court after framing issues and recording evidence pro and contra dismissed the suit by means of judgment and decree dated 9- 3-2004. The appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sheikhupura vide judgment/decree dated 6-10-2004. The petitioners filed Civil Revision before the learned Lahore High Court which met the same fate and dismissed vide order impugned, hence this petition for leave to appeal.
3. Mr. Muhammad Saleem Akhtar, learned Advocate Supreme Court entered appearance on behalf of petitioners and contended that legal and factual aspects of the controversy have not been appreciated in its true perspective which resulted in serious miscarriage of justice. In order to substantiate the said view it is contended that it is a case of sheer non-reading and mis-reading of evidence as in fact the Mutation No,460 dated 15-7-1956 was never sanctioned in accordance with law and prescribed procedure and besides that the factum of allotment by Evacuee Authority to the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners and subsequent endorsement by the Revenue Authorities went unnoticed causing serious prejudice against the petitioners. It is next contended that proper opportunity of hearing was never afforded to the petitioners and the allotment of land has been cancelled without assigning any cogent reasoning. It is next contended that in view of the nature of the controversy the respondents should have been approached the Evacuee Authorities by whom the land in question allotted in favour of the predecessor-in-interest which could not be done and at this belated stage the question of allotment cannot be considered.
4. Sh. Masud Akhtar, learned Advocate Supreme Court entered appearance on behalf of respondents and vehemently controverted the view point as canvassed at bar on behalf of petitioners with the further submission that all the pros and cons of the controversy have been dilated upon and decided in accordance with law and besides that in view of concurrent findings of fact no interference is called for and order impugned cannot be reversed without any lawful justification which is lacking.
5. We have carefully examined the respective contentions as agitated on behalf of the parties, perused the entire record made available and examined the judgment and decree passed by Civil Judge dated 9-3-2004, judgment of learned Additional District Judge dated 6-10-2004 and the order impugned carefully. After having gone through the entire record, we are of the considered view that no illegality or irregularity whatsoever has been committed by the learned trial court and appellate forums while adjudicating the controversy. It may not be out of place to mention here that all the forums constituted under, the hierarchy of settlement laws had decided the question of title in favour of respondents duly supported by concurrent and worthy of credence documentary evidence. The basic question which needs determination would be as to whether the property in question is evacuee property or otherwise which being question of fact has rightly been determined by the learned trial court that it was not an evacuee property, determination whereof has been upheld by learned single Judge of Lahore High Court in chambers assigning cogent and concurrent reasoning. In such view of the matter, the learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of petitioners was asked pointedly that as to how this land was allotted in favour of predecessor-in- interest of the respondents but no answer could be given. Besides that no documentary evidence could be mentioned inferring that land in question was allotted in favour of the predecessor-in- interest of the respondents. The Mutation No,460 dated 15-7-1956 cannot be declared illegal or void as pressed time and again by the learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of petitioners which otherwise was never challenged for a considerable long time. The learned trial court has framed a proper issue i,e, whether the impugned Mutation No,460 attested on 15-7-1976 in favour of defendants and impugned orders passed by Assistant Commissioner dated 18-12-1974 Additional Commissioner, Lahore dated 15-4-1996 and Board of Revenue dated 22-9-1996 are against facts, law, void without jurisdiction, against the principles of natural justice, equity and as such in- effective upon the rights of the plaintiffs? Which has been decided on the basis of evidence after having its proper scrutiny. The learned Advocate Supreme Court was asked pointedly that as to how it was not a case of non-reading or mis-reading of evidence but no specific instance could be quoted. The learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of petitioners heavily relied upon Exh.P-1 to Exh.P-23 which renders a little assistance to the entitlement of the petitioners rather it supports the case of respondents. It also revealed from the scrutiny of record that one Taj Din and Ali Muhammad (Exh.P-23) were admittedly tenants at relevant time and besides that land in question being not an evacuee property redemption of land could have been made by the respondents and even forums available under the hierarchy of revenue laws have supported the respondents up to the level of Member, Board of Revenue. As mentioned hereinabove the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below can only be reversed subject to lawful justification which is lacking in this case.
6. The upshot of the above is that this petition being meritless is dismissed leave reused.