SH. AZMAT SAEED, J.---This Civil Revision is directed against the judgment dated 22-2-2011, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioners against the order dated 8-3-2010 was dismissed.
2. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the lis at hand are that the present petitioners filed, a civil suit to call in question the order dated 24-10-2009 passed by the Member Board of Revenue, whereby it was inter alia held that the petitioners were not entitled to the land in dispute and they had fraudulently obtained proprietary rights thereto. Along with the plaint, an application for grant of temporary injunction was filed. Both the suit as well as the application for grant of temporary injunction was resisted. The trial Court, vide its order dated 8-3-2010, dismissed the application for temporary injunction. Aggrieved, the petitioners filed an appeal which failed to find favour and was dismissed, vide the impugned appellate judgment dated 22-2-2011.
3. The counsel for the parties have been heard and record, appended with this petition, has been perused.
4. It is the case of the petitioners that the land in dispute had been granted to them on a temporary lease and thereafter proprietary rights had been conferred on the petitioners by the Provincial Government and, therefore, a prima facie case was made out entitling the petitioners to a temporary injunction.
5. The learned counsel for. The private respondents has controverted the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners. It was the case of "the respondents that they were landowners, whose land was acquired for Thal Development Authority, and therefore, were alone entitled thereto by way of return, as such land was not available for transfer of proprietary rights to any third person.
6. It is an admitted fact between the parties that the land in question was acquired for the Thal Development Authority, therefore, any surplus land was the entitlement of the landowners by way of return. The present petitioners in the plaint have specifically stated that in fact they were tenants under one Sher Bahadur and, therefore, were not owners of the land. In the circumstances, they were not titled to the land which could only be adjusted in favour of the landowners. Such land did not belong to the Provincial Government and, therefore, no proprietary rights therein could be granted to any third party, as has been held by the M.B.R. In the above circumstances, the trial Court concluded that the petitioners had no prima facie case, which has been affirmed in appeal.
The orders of the two courts below were based on correct appreciation of facts and circumstances of the case and the law applicable thereto. There is no material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction warranting interference by this Court. Consequently, this petition is without any merit and is dismissed.