' LAL JAN KHATTAK, J.--This civil revision petition is directed against the judgment and decree dated 18-12-2012 of the learned Additional District Judge-II,. D.I. Khan whereby appeal of the petitioners against the judgment and decree dated 20-2-2012 of the learned Civil Judge-VII, D.I. Khan, was dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents-plaintiffs filed a suit against the petitioner- defendants firstly for the recovery of Rs.80,000 as compensation for 80 trees, secondly for the recovery of Rs.8000 per month for using 7 marlas of land and thirdly for possession of the aforesaid land. As alternate the respondents prayed for payment of compensation amount as per law in case the petitioners are reluctant to deliver possession of the suit-land.
3. According to averments of the plaint, the petitioners acquired from the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents 22-Kanals of landed property for the construction of Poly Technical Institute (Female) at Dera Ismail Khan. It was further averred in the plaint that in addition to 22 Kanals of land the petitioners illegally included 7 marlas of land of the respondents in their institute for which neither any award has been issued nor any compensation amount has been paid to the respondents-landowners.
4. Petitioners contested the suit of the respondents by filing their written statement in which they refuted the claim of the respondent. After framing necessary issues, the learned trial Court directed the parties to produce their evidence which they did whereafter the learned trial Court passed an order on 1-11-2011 for appointment of a local commission to inspect the spot and measure the area possessed by the petitioner-defendants. Accordingly the local commission inspected the spot in presence of the parties and prepared its report which was submitted to the Court. The petitioners objected to the report of the commission while the respondents accepted the same. The learned trial Court after hearing the parties to the suit vide its judgment dated 20-2-2012 decreed the suit of the respondents by directing the petitioners to pay compensation amount to the landowners for 7 marlas of land which has been occupied by them without payment of any compensation at the rate which was fixed by the honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in acquisition case regarding 22 Kanals of land earlier acquired by the department from the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents.
5. The respondents impugned the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court in appeal but the learned appellate Court dismissed the appeal vide its judgment and decree dated 18-12-2012, hence the instant civil revision petition against the judgments and decrees of the two Courts below.
6. Learned Additional Advocate-General in support of the revision petition contended that both the judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below are the result of misreading and non-reading of case evidence that the respondents have not proved their case regarding illegal possession of their land by the petitioners; that report of the local commission is also not according to the ground reality, that the local commissioner has not conducted, the measurements proceedings in accordance with rules on the subject.
7. As against the above, learned counsel for the respondents contended that the concurrent findings of the two Courts below are un-exceptionable as the same are based on correct appreciation of case evidence. The learned counsel for the respondents further contended that the report of the local commission is correct and there is no legal flaw in it which has correctly been confirmed and relied upon by the two Courts below.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case with the valuable assistance of the learned counsel.
9, There is no dispute to the fact that the petitioners had initially acquired 22 Kanals of land from the predecessor-ininterest of the respondents for the construction of Poly Technical Institute. It is also not the case of the petitioners that prior to the acquisition of 22 Kanals of land there was some other land in the same vicinity or Khata belonging to them or they thereafter have acquired some additional land either from the respondents or from some other adjacent land owners. Perusal of the report of the local commission shows that inside area of the Poly Technical Institute was measured and the total area was worked out to be 22 Kanals and 17 Marlas. However, according to the report one Manzoor Ahmad has occupied an area of 834 Marlas by constructing a house over it, though he is owner in the revenue record to the extent of 5 Marlas. This report which is Exh.CW-1/1 clearly transpires that the petitioners are in possession of excess land more than 22 Kanals for which the petitioners have no explanation that how and wherefrom they got the excess land. The local commissioner appeared before the learned trial Court as Court witness and apart from submitting his report he also exhibited "Naqsha-e-Tafawat" which is Exh.CW-1/2 which further transpires that inside the boundary of the Institute the total area is 22 Kanals and 17 Marlas which is more than the entitlement of the petitioners.
10. It is worth-mentioning that the local commissioner was not an ordinary person but was an expert on the subject of measurement being a Naib Tehsildar, therefore, there is no question of any wrong and false calculation of the area inspected and measured by him.
11. The learned trial Court instead of passing a decree for possession of the excess area of 7-Marlas ordered the, petitioners to pay its compensation to the respondents-landowners which is a just decision and has fixed market value of the land occupied by the petitioners at the rate which was fixed by the honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in 'an earlier round between the same parties qua the land measuring 22 Kanals acquired from the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents.
12. Both the Courts below have assessed and appreciated the case, evidence and material. On record correctly and properly and have rightly, granted relief to the respondents-plaintiff There is no illegality or infirmity in the concurrent findings of the two Court below which are hereby maintained.
13. For the above discussion and reasons, the instant revision petition of the petitioners being bereft of any merit is dismissed.