ORDER HAFIZ ABDUL REHMAN ANSARI, J.---Through this Civil Revision, the petitioners have called in question the order dated 11-6-2010 passed by Mr. Mian Muhammad Ayub, learned Additional District Judge, Khanewal, whereby he dismissed the appeal of petitioners upholding the impugned order dated 1-62010 passed by Mr. Syed Jahangir Ali Bukhari, learned Civil Judge, Khanewal whereby dismissed the application of petitioners for the grant of temporary injunction and also accepted application filed under Order I, Rule 10, C.P.C. By Muhammad Aslam respondent No.5.
2. That succinct germane facts giving rise to the instant petition are that the petitioners/plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration against the respondents/ defendants narrating therein that the petitioners/plaintiffs are allottees under Tube-well Scheme in respect of Lot No.7 measuring 230-K 9-M situated at Chak No.42-A.I.R Tehsil and District Khanewal vide order dated 6-6-1968 passed by the then Additional Commissioner, Multan and they are in cultivating possession of said land 40 years. Initially, the suit land was allotted to their predecessor in interest under tube-well Scheme. By spending huge amount, they have made the land cultivable and installed tube well therein and also constructed residence on the suit land.
Respondents/defendants, Province of the Punjab, etc., without prior notice to the petitioners cancelled the allotment and resumed the land in dispute. The cancellation order was assailed at different forums of Revenue Authority but of no effect. Later on assailed the orders of Revenue authority through the suit for declaration but they put the suit land in auction and conducted auction proceedings and the land was purchased by highest bidder. The petitioners prayed that till the disposal of suit, respondents be restrained from interfering in their possession.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners A contends that the impugned orders passed by the courts below are against law and facts, hence, are not sustainable in the eye of law which are liable to be set at naught; that the learned courts below did not apply their sagacious and independent judicial mind towards facts and law applicable in this case; that the most important and significant aspect of the case is that they courts below remained in oblivion that the petitioners being allottees are admittedly in possession of the land in question and they have converted the said land from barren condition into cultivable one but despite this fact the proprietary rights have not been given to the petitioners and instead of it, the said land is being auctioned after obtaining bids from the bidders; that needless to say that while granting the stay order, the Courts have to take into consideration three essential ingredients i.e. Prima facie good case, irreparable loss and balance of convenience and all factors were/are existed in favour of the petitioners, as such, the impugned orders. Of the courts below are untenable and liable to be brushed aside. In this respect, learned counsel for the petitioners places reliance on PLD 1982 Lahore 558; PLD 1983 Karachi 387; 1984 CLC 993; 1985 CLC 457; 1988 CLC 2313; PLD 1970 SC 180 and 1992 CLC 794(DB). That the learned courts below have not acted in exercise of their jurisdiction vested with them and have passed the impugned orders illegally and with material irregularity; that the findings of the courts below are based on mere conjectures, surmises and suppositions which cannot be sustained in the judicial arena. Learned counsel for the petitioner has lastly prayed that this revision may be accepted by setting aside the impugned orders dated 1-6-2010 and 11-6-2010 and application of the petitioners restraining the respondents from confirming the bid in favour of bidders in the said so-called auction proceedings or dispossessing the petitioners from the land in question or issuing warrant of possession thereof or committing any act adverse to the legitimate rights of the petitioners in any manner whatsoever, in the supreme interest of justice.
8. I have heard the arguments propounded by learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record carefully.
9. Admittedly, the land in dispute was resumed by the competent authority in the year, 1970 and on account of litigation at different forums the petitioners are in possession of the suit-land. The suit land was put to auction but the petitioners did not take part in the auction proceedings. Record also reveals that the petitioners for obtaining injunctive order, filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble Lahore High Court, Multan Bench but no injunctive order was issued. This fact has not been revealed by the petitioners in the civil suit, in appeal or in the instant civil revision. Both the courts below have dismissed the stay application of the petitioners. The Courts have given concurrent findings and I would not like to disturb the same in the revisional jurisdiction.
10. The corollary of the above discussion is that both the Courts below have not committed any illegality or irregularity in passing the impugned orders. Both the orders passed are rational, convincing and passed on sound reasons. The fact that the petitioners are legal occupants, the learned counsel for the petitioners could not establish this fact through. Evidence. So, this Civil Revision having no force and substance is dismissed in limine. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.