' ALI BAQAR NAJAFI, J. --- Through this Constitutional petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to implement the judgment and decree dated 13.6.1996. In the revenue record and issue Patta Malkiat in the name of the petitioner.
2. The brief facts leading to the filing of this petition are that the agricultural land in question was allotted to the predecessor of the petitioner, namely, Ghulam Farid by the Provincial Government in the Grow More Food Schemes in the year 1960. The land was made cultivatable after spending huge amount of money and the said predecessor complied with all the conditions of allotment including the payment of Zar-e-Lagan. However, the said land was resumed without notice, which was challenged upto the highest level of Board of Revenue. Later, he filed a declaratory suit challenging the resumption and praying for issuance of Patta Maikiat. During the pendency of the suit, said predecessor, Allah Bakhsh; died and his legal heirs were impleaded. On 13.6.1996, the learned Civil Judge had passed the decree in favour of the petitioner. An appeal was preferred on 13.6.1996, which was dismissed on 28.11.1996, whereafter Civil Revision No, 498/1996 was preferred before this Court, which was dismissed on 6.12.2000. The petitioner then moved an execution petition for implementation of the said judgment by the revenue authorities for incorporation of their names in the revenue record but the same was not done even after lapse of nine years.
Hence, this writ petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the judgment and decree passed by the competent Court of jurisdiction had attained finality, hence to be implemented at the earliest and prays for a direction for the purpose.
4. Conversely, the learned Assistant Advocate-General appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the basis of report and parawise comments submitted by respondent No, 2, argues that the petitioner was dispossessed from the land in question and the crops of Kharif-2009 were given on Superdari to the Lumberdar but later when he presented the decree of Civil Court, the Superdari was cancelled and the crops were returned to the petitioner. He, however, submits that the decree has to be implemented in the revenue record by the order of the District Collector and for this purpose, the case of the petitioner has already been forwarded to the said office and waiting for the necessary action.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the available record.
6. Since the judgment and decree dated 13.6.1996 was passed by the Court of competent jurisdiction, which has attained finality, therefore, it has to be implemented. As respondent No, 2 has already forwarded the case of the petitioner to the District Collector, therefore, respondent No, 2 is directed to give effect to the judgment and decree dated 13.6.1996 in the revenue record within a period of six months from the receipt of this order. This petition is disposed of in the above terms.