' MALIK MANZOOR HUSSAIN, J .---This revision petition has been preferred against judgment/decree dated 19-11-2012, passed by learned Addl: District Judge-II Swabi, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 4-12-2010, passed by the learned Trial Court was upheld.
2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that respondent No.1 filed a suit for declaration and mandatory injunction against the petitioners and respondents Nos.2 and 3. The petitioners contested the suit while respondents Nos.2 and 3 were placed ex parte. After recording pro and contra evidence, the learned trial Court vide judgment dated 4-12-2010, decreed the suit. Feeling dissatisfied the petitioner preferred appeal but the same was also dismissed through judgment dated 19-11-2012, hence the instant revision petition.
3.Learned counsel for petitioners contended that though initially the plot was allotted to the respondents but after its cancellation the respondents never availed the remedy by way of filing appeal before the proper forum, therefore, they were estopped by their conduct to file a suit against the petitioners without first availing the appropriate remedy available under the rules. It was further contended that no plot was available when the decree was passed, therefore the petitioners were not made liable for allotment of any plot to the respondents. It was further brought into the notice of this Court that some of the allottees had filed Writ Petition No.2513 of 2010, before this Court and the same was allowed vide judgment dated 8-3-202, whereby the plots were allotted to the petitioners of said Writ Petition.
4. Conversely, learned counsel for respondents argued that respondent No.1, applied for 10 Marla plot vide application dated 27-4-2004 and the amount required was duly deposited through a valid receipt and in consequence thereof, the Plot No.184/C was allotted to respondent No.
1. Afterwards it transpired that this plot was also allotted to one Bin Yameen son of Moulvi Abdul Malik, therefore, the petitioners without giving notice to the respondents cancelled the plot. It was contended that no notice was given with regard to cancellation. Thus the cancellation order was ab initio void and not effective upon the rights of respondent No.l.
' Arguments heard, record perused.
5. Perusal of record reveals that through application bearing No.000878 dated 27-2-2004, respondent No.1 applied for allotment of 10 Marla plot on the basis of "first come first serve". The respondent No.1 was on the top of list, therefore, he was allotted plot No.184/C. Afterward this plot was cancelled on 12-8-2004, on the pretext that the same had already been allotted in the name of one Bin Yameen and it was conveyed to the respondent No.1, that he would be allotted another plot. Despite appeal, the petitioners failed to honour their commitment which constrained the respondent No.1 to approach the Civil Court for redressal of his grievances. It is an admitted fact that no notice was issued to respondent No.1 prior to cancellation of his plot. After cancellation of his allotment, so many plots were allotted on the basis of draw as well as on the basis of judgment of this Court passed in Writ Petition, therefore, the contention of learned counsel for petitioners that no plots were available, therefore, could not be allotted to respondent No.1, is of no force. It is very strange to note that in Para 'D' of instant civil revision, the petitioners have categorically admitted that few numbers of plots are lying vacant with the authority but despite decree of Court dated 4- 12-2010, no efforts were made to honour the decree.
6. Once the respondent N6.1 was held entitled being on the top of merit for entitlement of the plot- and in pursuance thereof an allotment order of plot No.184/C was issued on 27-2:2004, the petitioners were bound to honour their commitment and if it was found that the plot was already allowed to another allottee, then it, was bounden duty of the petitioners to allot an alternate plot to respondent No.1, which were available even till filing of instant civil revision.
7. It is well settled that functionaries of State are bound to make their decision honestly, judiciously and strictly in accordance with law. In order to maintain confidence of the public it was the duty of the petitioner to run their affairs un- pollutedly. It seems that the petitioners not only violated the relevant rules but have made certain concessions to their blue eyed, which resulted in the shape of instant petition as well as the connected petition (C.R. No.168-P/13) and in the shape of Writ Petition No.2513 of 2010. As per contents of instant civil revision plots are available with the petitioners, even otherwise, they are bound to honour the decree of Court. No illegality or infirmity could be pointed out by the learned counsel for petitioners in the, impugned judgments of learned Courts below. The question of facts have thoroughly been determined by the final Court of fact i.e., the learned appellate Court. In revisional jurisdiction of this Court, the question of facts concurrently determined could not be disturbed unless and until the judgments passed are perverse or against the material available on record.
' In View of what has been discussed above, this petition being devoid of any merits is dismissed with costs.