' MUHAMMAD AZIM KHAN AFRIDI, J.--- Muhammad Khushal son and Mst. Sakina Bibi daughter of Khan Muhammad hereinafter referred to as the petitioners have preferred the instant revision petition against judgment and decree dated 27-8-2009, whereby appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed and judgment and decree dated 19-4-2007, dismissing suit of the petitioners, was maintained.
2. Brief facts relevant for the disposal of the instant revision petition are that an award of revenue estate of village Sumbal Korak Tehsil and District Islamabad, was announced on 15-6-1962 wherein land as well as built-up property of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners namely Khan Muhammad and his two brothers namely Jan Muhammad and Mastana sons of Kazim Ali was acquired by the respondents. That the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners was entitled to allotment of residential plot as per policy of CDA and, to secure the same, a formal application on prescribed pro forma was also given by him in the year 1975, but till date no plot was allotted in the name of the predecessor-in-interest or the petitioners.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that to secure the plot the petitioners made numerous efforts and ultimately filed, civil suit for declaration and mandatory injunction which was contested by the respondents. That the learned trial court illegally dismissed the same vide impugned judgment and decree dated 19-4-2007. That the petitioners preferred an appeal against the said judgment and decree which was heard by the learned Additional District Judge, Islamabad, and vide impugned judgment and decree dated 27-8-2009 the same was dismissed.
That the learned trial court as well as court of appeal has failed to appreciate the case of the petitioners in its true perspective. That Khan Muhammad predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners has been shown owner of built-up property as evident from list showing the cost of houses, wells and bands etc. Of village Poona Faqiran, copy Exh.P.7 wherein predecessor of petitioners has been shown.One of the owners of built-up area measuring 1540 square feet worth Rs,9343/-. That the case of the petitioners is governed by, the Islamabad Displaced Persons Rehabilitation Policy 1984 as well as Revised Displaced Persons Rehabilitation Policy 1996. That the predecessor of the petitioners was given the compensation of the property, but the plot, in addition to the said compensation, was not given to him in spite of his entitlement. He also made reference to the written statement and evidence of the respondents and argued that the petitioners were entitled to the plot, while both the courts below have failed to appreciate the evidence and had declined to grant the decree in spite of established case of the petitioners.
4. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on judgment in Writ Petition No, 2858 of 2009 titled Muhammad Siddique v. CDA (Islamabad High Court), C.P.L.A.
No,1428 of 2004 (Supreme Court of Pakistan) and judgment dated 8-4-2004 (Supreme Court of Pakistan).
5. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that the petitioners were not entitled to allotment of any plot on the strength of entry at Serial No,220 of Exh.P.7 as the said house was jointly owned by Khan Muhammad predecessor of petitioners and his two brothers namely Jan Muhammad and Mastana. That the predecessor of petitioners was not having any independent family unit and was living with his brothers in a jointly owned property. That the brothers of the predecessor of petitioners had already availed the concessions against whom the petitioners had raised no claim.
He further argued that the concurrent findings of facts by the Courts below were not open to revisional jurisdiction of this Court.
6. Reliance was placed on case-law reported in 2003 CLC 110 and 2002 SCMR 114.
7. I have heard arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
8. To rehabilitate the displaced persons, CDA, in addition to compensation, evolved a new Rehabilitation Policy in the year 1984 and 1996 namely Islamabad Displaced Persons Rehabilitation Policy, hereinafter referred to as the policy. The said policy is applicable to acquisition made prior to 1st January, 1996. Unsettled cases of the past were also brought within its domain. The case of the petitioners being unsettled, was therefore governed by the said policy. Since the agricultural land as well as built-up property of the predecessor of the petitioners was acquired by the CDA as such the petitioners are "affectee" as defined in sub-clause (1) of the Clause 2 of the policy.
9. Since clause 2(2) and 4(A) of the said policy has direct bearing on the case of the petitioners as such the same is reproduced herein for ready reference.
"4. Policy---
(A) Affectees due to acquisition of Built-up Property only.---Where only built-up property is acquired from the affectees, residential plots in the Sub Urban Centres would be offered to them as a consideration for their permanent rehabilitation. The basis of such an offer will be a single family unit."
10. In view of the above it can be safely termed that only acquisition of built-up property from an "affectee" entitles him to a residential plot in the Sub Urban as a consideration for permanent rehabilitation when such an affectee is a single "family unit".
11. Family unit has been defined in Clause 2(2) of the policy in the following manners.
Clause 2(2) "Family Unit" means husband/wife and dependent children or single person owing a separate/independent house. Note.--- This will not include single person living in a jointly owned property."
12. A careful perusal of the afore-quoted definition of family unit would reveal that husband/wife and dependent children owning a separate or independent house would form a family unit.
Similarly a single person owing a separate or independent house would also form a family unit for the purpose of policy but a single person living in a joint house would not, form an independent family unit for the purpose of availing benefit of a residential plot under the policy. Additionally the benefit of a residential plot under the policy was available to an affectee who owned only built-up property and from which such an affectee stood deprived through acquisition acquired by CDA.
13. Though the said policy of 1984 was cancelled in the year 1996 when a revised and modified policy was approved by the Board however all allotments made, including decision taken by the competent authority under the policy of 1984 were confirmed therein. The case of the petitioners would be therefore adjudged under the policy of 1984.
14. According to the evidence adduced by the petitioners, predecessor of petitioners was living in a jointly owned house and was also owner of other land acquired by CDA as such he, cannot be termed as a person owning only built-up property in the shape of separate or independent house and would 'therefore, neither be a "family unit" for the purpose of the said policy nor entitled to claim a plot in view of clause 4(A) of the policy.
15. Furthermore, the petitioners have not opted to claim any interest in the property allotted to the brothers of the predecessor of petitioners as a "family unit" and have lodged a claim in addition to the allotment of property to their uncles in lieu of the "family unit" to which the predecessor of the petitioners was a member as such the petitioners are not entitled to the declaration and injunction in the mode and manners as prayed for.
16. Facts of the cases relied upon by the counsel for the petitioners are not identical to the facts of the case in hand as in the said cases the claimant were living in independent houses, while the predecessor of the petitioners was not living in an independent house forming a separate or independent family unit.
17. In cases reported as 2003 CLC 110 and 2002 SCMR 114, concurrent findings recorded by the Courts were not interfered within the revisional jurisdiction. In the case in hand no illegality or material irregularity is evident from the findings of the Courts below as such the same do not warrant interference in the revisional jurisdiction of this Court.
18. In view of the above, I see no substance in the present revision petition, the same is, therefore, dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.