ABDUL WAHEED KHAN, J. --- On 24.9.1995 the petitioners filed a suit for declaration stating therein that about 15/16 years before filing of the suit their predecessor-in-interest namely Wali Dad was allotted Ahatas No. 1 and 64 measuring 8 marlas each situated in Mouza Chak No. 20 Sharqi Kharian. That respondent/defendant No. 6 in collusion with respondents/defendant Nos. 1 to 5, managed the issuance of a certificate in his favour and on the basis of the same, got managed the sanctioning of mutation No. 1581, dated 28.12.1994, the same is against the facts and law on the point and thus ineffective qua their rights. The suit was contested by the defendants and as many as seven issues were settled.
2. Petitioners/plaintiffs' special attorney appeared as PW.2 and produced Manzoor Ahmad Colony Clerk as PW.1. In support of their claim. They produced the documents from Ex.P.1 to P.9. On the 'other hand respondent/defendant Waris appeared as DW.1 and examined Walayat Ullah as DW.2 and produced copy of mutation No. 1581. Dated 28.12.1994 as Ex.D.1.
3. The Senior Civil Judge through the impugned judgment dated 07.10.2002, while deciding issues Nos. 1 and 2, recorded his findings that since the plaintiffs had not deposited the sale price of Ahata No. 1. The proprietary rights were not conferred upon Walidad and thus the Provincial Government remained the owner of the Ahata. Further that allotment is always provisional and is subject to the fulfilment of the conditions incorporated in the allotment letter. The suit was dismissed through the impugned judgment and decree dated 07.10.2002. An appeal filed there-against also met the same fate through the impugned judgment and decree dated 01.04.2004, hence this revision petition.
4. The contentions of counsel for the petitioners are that although Form-C-21 could not be exhibited during the proceedings before the Civil Court but through additional evidence the said document was brought on record as Ex.P.9, that both the Ahatas. No. I and 64 were allotted to the predecessor-ininterest of the petitioners/plaintiffs namely Wali Dad on 18.03.1969,@ Rs. 30/-P.M.
And thus -Wall Dad was entitled for the proprietary rights. Further that allotment in favour of Wali Dad is still in-tact and that no notice was served upon the legal heirs of Wali Dad, informing them the allotment of Ahata to the respondent No. 6, Respondent Waris has admitted in his statement before the Civil Court as DW.1 that he has no agricultural land in the village, that respondent No. 6 was allotted land measuring 34-kanals in village WaanTehsil Daska as is borne out of document Ex.P.1. With these submissions. It is prayed that since Ahata No. 1 is already allotted to the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners. The price of the same has been deposited, therefore, it was not available for allotment and the Civil Court should have decreed the suit as prayed for in the plaint.
5. Conversely, the contentions of the counsel for the respondents are that Ahata No. 1 though was allotted on 18.03.1969 but the petitioners deposited the sale price on 08.06.1995 i.e. After 26-years of the allotment in particular when the same Ahata was already allotted on 28.04.1995 to the respondent Waris vide Ex.D.1, that PW.1 has admitted the fact that sale price was deposited on 18.06.1995 before filing of the application for conferment of rights by the petitioners on 12.06.1995.
Further that application and the decision of the revenue authorities available at pages 48 and 49 of this petition proves that the respondent Waris is in possession of the Ahata and not the petitioners. It is prayed that this petition merits dismissal.
6. Arguments heard and record perused. The petitioners claim their right over Ahata No. 1 as according to them, the said Ahata was allotted to their predecessor-in-interest on18.03.1969 vide Form-C-21 Ex.P.9. Perusal of the same shows that the allotment was made on 18.03.1969 and the payment was made on 18.06.1995 i.e. After about 26-years of the allotment, as per column-4 of the document Form-C-21 Ex.P.9. Since the petitioners did not deposit the sale price in accordance with the date mentioned in column-4. Therefore, it cannot he assumed that without deposit of the sale price the petitioners were entitled for conferment of the proprietary rights. Record further reveals that the petitioners filed an application for conferment of proprietary rights of Ahata No. 1 on 12.06.1995 and after six days they deposited the amount of Rs. 4480/- as sale price and thus it stood established that on C.L.R.
28.04.1995 when the proprietary rights were conferred upon the respondent Waris vide Ex.D.1, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, at their own, deposited the sale price of Ahata No. 1 and the same was not vacant. Due to non-deposit of sale price .Within the stipulated period, the said Ahata shall be deemed to have been fallen under the ownership of the Province of Punjab. As the plaintiffs could not succeed in proving the contents of the plaint, therefore, the Civil Court has rightly dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs through the impugned judgment and the Addl. District Judge has committed no illegality or irregularity while dismissing the appeal filed by the plaintiffs through the impugned judgment. The counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any mis- reading or non-reading of any document by both the Courts below. Resultantly, this revision petition fails and the same is dismissed.
Civil Revision . 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.