KHALID MAHMOOD MALIK, J:- Both the above-mentioned revision petitions have been directed against consolidated judgment and decree dated 20.9.2000 passed by learned Addl: District Judge Sahiwal, whereby he accepted the appeals of respondents and set aside the consolidated judgment and decree dated 04.07.1994 passed by learned Civil Judge Sahiwal, whereby he decreed the suit of Abdul Wahab, predecessor in interest of petitioners.
2. Precisely facts necessary for disposal of these revision petitions are that Abdul Wahab, predecessor in interest of petitioners filed a suit for declaration in which he has challenged the order dated 26.4.1992 and Mutation relating to Ihata No.138, lying in Chak No.80/6.L and seeks declaration to the effect that Order issued by Collector is illegal, in-effective and in-operative qua the rights of plaintiff. Plaintiff further sought decree for permanent injunction to the effect that respondents be restrained to interfere in possession of plaintiff over the suit land. After death of Abdul Wahab, petitioners No. 1(A to L) and petitioner No.2 have been impleaded as party being legal heirs of Abdul Wahab(deceased).
3. Shameer, deceased(defendant), predecessor in interest of respondents has also filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against Abdul Wahab(deceased) and his son Mehboob to the effect that he is owner of disputed Ihata and Abdul Wahab has no concern with the property in question and he be permanently restrained from interfering in his possession.
4. The suits were contested by both the parties through written statements. After observing legal formalities, learned Civil Judge framed relevant consolidated issues and parties were called upon to produce their evidence. At the conclusion of case, learned Civil Judge decreed the suit of Abdul Wahab, predecessor in interest of petitioners and dismissed the suit of Shameer, predecessor in interest of respondents. The respondents being legal heirs of Shameer, have filed appeals, which have been accepted by the learned Addl: Sessions Judge Sahiwal, vide impugned judgment and decree. Hence these revision petitions.
5. Learned counsel for petitioners has argued that learned Civil Judge has passed the impugned judgment dated 04.07.1994, after appraisal of evidence produced by parties in its true perspective and findings and observation of learned trial Court are based on well reasons. Learned Appellate Court had reversed the findings of learned Civil Judge and had not properly analyzed the evidence produced by petitioners/plaintiffs and relevant law on the subject, thus committed illegality and material irregularity while passing the impugned judgment and decree dated 20.9.2000. Lastly he prayed that by accepting instant revision petitions, suit of Abdul Wahab predecessor in interest of plaintiffs be decreed.
6. Conversely learned counsel for respondents has supported the impugned judgment and decree dated 20.9.2000 passed by learned Appellate Court and pleaded that learned Appellate Court had appreciated the documentary evidence and relevant law on the subject as oral evidence could not exclude the documentary evidence.
7. Arguments put forwarded by learned counsel for parties and perusal of record, reveals that the claim of plaintiffs/ petitioners was that disputed Ihata in question was allotted to Mehmood, father of Abdul Wahab (predecessor in interest of plaintiffs), who deposited the amount of Rs.80/- per Marla. Plaintiff Abdul Wahab being sole son of his father was in possession of disputed Ihata and he has been residing there. In the absence of plaintiffs, fictitious report was got prepared and sale deed was executed on the basis of Mutation dated 26.6.1992 on 17.03.1992 attested by the order of Assistant Collector-II which are liable to be set aside as the price of the disputed Ihata has already been deposited by father of plaintiffs. Therefore, the plaintiff Abdul Wahab being legal heir of his father is entitled to continue the possession and entitled for its allotment. While as per contesting defendants Shameer was the resident of Chak No.80/5-L, Tehsil and District Sahiwal and the disputed Ihata was owned by the Provincial Government, which was allotted to plaintiffs in consideration of sale price. After depositing the sale amount, sale deed was executed by the District Collector, which was got registered before the Sub-Registrar on 17.3.1992. In consequence, Mutation No.298 was attested on 26.4.1992 and Shameer, predecessor in interest of respondents has become owner of the Ihata in question.
8. Both the parties produced their evidence. From petitioners/plaintiffs' side Shaukat Ali Bhatti appeared as (PW-1), Gharagh Ali(PW-2), Burhan(PW-3), and Abdul Wahab(PW-4). In documentary evidence, petitioners/plaintiffs produced documents Ex:P-1 to Ex:P-5. In rebuttal, from defendants/respondents' side, Muhammad Azam appeared as(DW-1), Muhammad Amir(DW-2) and Rab Nawaz (DW-3). In documentary evidence, defendants/ respondents produced documents Ex:D-1 to Ex:D-4.
9. It is now well settled principle of law that oral evidence could not exclude the documentary evidence. In this regard reliance is placed on case law titled as"Elahi Bakhsh through Legal Heirs and others Versus Muhammad Iqbal and another" (2014 SCM R 1217) and case law titled as "Muhammad Anwar Versus Bashir Ahmad and another"(2014 CLC 1819). The whole claim of petitioners/plaintiffs was based on copy of application for allotment (Ex:P-1), copies of statement dated 7.8.1965(Ex:P-2 & Ex:P-3), copy of order dated 27.9.1965(Ex:P4) and copy of receipt for payment (Ex:P-5). All these documents relied by petitioners were not supported the version of predecessor in interest of petitioners and to establish that the disputed Ihata was allotted to Mehmood, predecessor in interest of Abdul Wahab. The application (Ex:P-1) was not addressed to any sanctioning authority and Application Ex:P-1 was filed in the Court of Assistant Collector Montgomary which was forwarded to Tehsildar by Gardawar on 05.3.1964. There is no order of A.C on it. Similarly, the documents Ex:P-2 Atiya/gift reveals that it was recorded by Girdawar who has no legal authority to record statement of peoples. Ex:P-3, the alleged statement of Mehmood was also recorded by Girdawar. The main documents relied upon by the petitioners was allotment order dated 27.9.1965(Ex:P-4) which comprised of two lines i.e. {{ URDU TEXT }} A.C 10. The challan receipt Ex:P-5 indicates that Rs.854/- was deposited as a revenue and not as a price of the Ihata in question. The basic requirement of Section 10(2)(2 to 4) have not complied with in the case of petitioners. The documents produced by plaintiffs are also not supported by Shaukat Ali Bhatti, Ihata Clerk(PW-1). In cross-examination he stated that:- {{ URDU TEXT }}
11. It is held by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan in case titled "Allah Ditta Versus Ali Muhammad and another"(1990 SCMR 1577) that:- "There can be no doubt that before any person lays any claim to any tenancy to Government land he has to show that he secured the said tenancy through a written order passed by the Collector in that behalf and he took possession of the land with the permission of the Collector. This is obvious from Section 10(4) of the Colonization of Government Land (Punjab) Act, 1912."
12. No evidence was produced by predecessor in interest of petitioners to show that the allotment was made after observing the legal formalities as per provisions of Colonization of Government Land (Punjab) Act. On the other hand, from the record, it is established that respondents had submitted application (Ex:D-2) to C.A for allotment of Ihata, which was properly entertained by the concerned Authority and after observing requirements of law, C.A issued Order in favour of respondents. Learned counsel for petitioners has failed to point out any piece of misreading, non- reading of evidence and non-appraisal of documentary evidence available on record and findings and observations of learned Appellate Court are based on appraisal of documentary evidence and relevant law on the subject.
13. In view of above discussed facts, both revision petitions having no force are hereby dismissed.