' MUHAMMAD IQBAL MAHAR, J.--- By this common order, I intend to dispose of captioned revision applications filed by applicant Dost Ali bearing No,51 of 2015 and No,52 of 2015, in which he has challenged the consolidated judgment dated 11.02.2015 and decree dated 18.02.2015 passed by learned IInd: Additional District Judge, Shaheed Benazirabad in Civil Appeals Nos.104 and 105 of 2012 respectively, whereby he maintained the judgments and decrees passed in F.C. Suit Nos. 204/2010 and F.C. Suit No, 104 of 2011 dated 31.10.2012 by learned 1st Senior Civil Judge, Nawabshah, who dismissed the F.C. Suit No,204/2010 filed by applicant and decreed the F.C. Suit No,104/2011 filed by Mst. Farzana.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant Dost Ali filed F.C. Suit No, 204 of 2010 for declaration and injunction against Menhon Khan and others before the Court of learned 1st. Senior Civil Judge, Nawabshah stating therein that an agricultural land comprising of S.No,14/3, area 04-00 acres, situated in deh Ghairabad Daur was Naqaboli land and government published the schedule for disposal under the Land Grant Policy. The applicant applied for grant of suit land which was granted to him in the year 1985-86 in open katchery by the then defunct Colonization Officer, Sukkur Barrage and such ljazatnama was issued to him. After grant of land, the applicant by hard labour and expenses brought it under cultivation, he paid all installments and resultantly T.O. Form was issued on 18.11.1997 and such entry was made in revenue record. Thereafter the respondent No,!
In R.A. No,52/2015 filed an application before the Executive District Officer (Revenue), Nawabshah in the year 2003, claiming that the suit land viz. S.No,14/3 along with S.Nos.15/1,2 area 12-00 acres was allotted to him in the year 1957-58 vide A-Form No,10750 and he prayed that the grant of the applicant Dost Ali may be cancelled. The case of the applicant is that the respondent No,1 neither filed any representation/objection to the schedule published for grant of land nor contested in katchery held by C.O. Sukkur Barrage and nor he produced T.O. Form or copy of the entries made in the relevant record. The EDO (Revenue), Nawabshah passed order on the application of the respondent No,1 whereby he cancelled the grant of suit land in the name of the applicant. Later on, the applicant challenged the order of EDO (Revenue), Nawabshah before the Member Board of Revenue, but he also maintained the order of EDO (Revenue) Nawabshah. Hence the applicant filed aforesaid suit with the following prayers:-
(a) Declaration that order dated 8th May 2003 passed by Executive District Officer, Nawabshah/defendant No,4 and the order dated 31.5.2010 passed by Member (Judicial-11) Board of Revenue SindkHyderabad/defendant No3 about cancellation of suit land S.No,14/3 area 4.00 acres situated in deh Ghairabad Daur, Taluka Daur, being mala fide, illegal, ab initio void, without lawful authority, jurisdiction do not effect right, title, interest of plaintiff in the suit land and the plaintiff continues to be lawful bona fide owner of said land, entitled to remain in possession and enjoyment of the said land without claim, interference or disturbance whatsoever from defendants or any person claiming through or under them.
(b) Injunction to issue whereby defendants be permanently restrained from disturbing or try to disturb possession, use, occupation of plaintiff on suit land S.No,14/3 area 04-0 acres deh Ghariabad Daur, Taluka Daur or alienating or try to alienate the said land by any mode of alienation to any person prejudicial to the rights of plaintiffs, directly, indirectly by themselves, through their agents, associates or by any means, prejudicial to the rights of plaintiffs.
(c) The costs of the suit be awarded to the plaintiff.
(d) Any other relief the Honourable Court deems fit and proper be awarded to plaintiff.
3. The respondent No,1 contested the suit and filed his written statement denying the case of the applicant by stating that the suit land was already granted to him by the competent authority after observing all codal formalities in the year 1957-58 and Form-A was issued and as per Form-A he deposited all the installments, T.O. Form was issued to him and record of rights was mutated in his name in the year 1973. On 16.4.2005 he sold out the suit land through registered sale deed to Mst.
Farzana in the sum of Rs,1,25,000/- and the amount was paid to him, thereafter he handed over possession of land to her and khata was mutated in the year 2005 vide entry No,166 in Form-VII-B.
The applicant came to know about the sale of the suit land to Mst. Farzana by respondent No,1, he with bad ethics forcibly possessed over the suit land on show of weapons claiming ownership of the suit land. Respondent No,1 filed miscellaneous application before the EDO, who after affording the opportunities of being heard disposed of the matter on merits and cancelled the grant of applicant and declared the respondent No,1 owner/grantee of the suit land. It is further stated in his written statement that the applicant approached to the Member Board of Revenue Sindh and filed Case No,SRROR/95/2005 for adjudication of the matter again on merits by the said authority; but it was great misfortune of the applicant that Member Board of Revenue Sindh (Judicial) maintained the order of EDO (Revenue), Nawabshah. It is also stated that the respondent No,1 was original owner and legally allottee of the suit land according to the Land Grant Policy introduced by the competent authority and valid record is also in the name of respondent No,1 and he sold the suit land to Mst. Farzana in the year 2005 and handed over its peaceful and vacant possession to her.
4. The relevant facts of F.C. Suit No,104 of 2011 filed by Mst. Farzana for declaration, Possession, Mesne Profit and Injunction, respondent No,1 in Civil Revision Application No,51 of 2015 and respondent No,7 in Civil Revision Application No,52/2015 are that an agricultural land bearing S.No,15/1 (4-00 acres), 15/2 (4-00 acres) and 14/3 (4-00 acres), total area (12-00 acres), situated in deh Ghairabad. Daur, Taluka Daur was originally granted to one Menhoon Khan in the year 1957-58, he paid all the installments and T.O. Form was issued in his favour on 7.6.1973, entry was made in the revenue record and he was enjoying all rights, title and was in possession of the suit land. The applicant on the basis of false, fabricated and bogus documents started baseless claim over the S.No,14/3 (4-00 acres) of suit land claiming himself to be grantee of said (4-00 acres) in the year 1985-86. Menhoon Khan filed an application before EDO (Revenue) challenging the alleged grant in favour of the applicant on the ground that the suit land already stands granted to him in the year 1957-58 vide Form-A No,10750, therefore, the alleged transfer of S.No,14/3 in favour of the applicant was illegal and unlawful. The applicant contested the said application, but the application was granted in favour of Menhoon Khan and the grant of applicant was cancelled vide order dated 8.5 2003. The applicant filed an appeal against the order of EDO (R) before the Member Board of Revenue Sindh, which was dismissed by Member (Judicial-II) Board of Revenue Sindh vide order dated 31.5.2010, thereafter the applicant filed F.C. Suit No,204 of 2010 before the Court of learned 1st.
Senior Civil Judge, Nawabshah, which has been dismissed and the suit of the respondent No,1 in Civil Revision Application No,52 of 2015 was decreed by a consolidated judgments of learned 1st.
Senior Civil Judge, Nawabshah. She further stated in her plaint that original grantee Menhon Khan being lawful owner, in possession of the suit land, sold the same to her and executed registered sale deed No,1373 dated 16.4.2005 and the same was duly mutated in her name in the revenue record of rights vide entry No,166 in form VII-B and that defendant No,1 seeing the transfer of the suit land in favour of the applicant trespassed over the same and illegally and unlawfully took over the possession of the same. It is stated that defendant No,1 has no right, title or interest over the suit land, but he is occupying the entire suit land illegally and unlawfully. The respondent No,1 is also enjoying the produce of the suit land. She further stated that she being owner of the suit is entitled for restoration of possession of the suit land, as well as the defendant No,1 is also liable to pay the income of produce of suit land to the plaintiff. She approached the respondent No,1 and requested him to vacate the suit land and hand over peaceful possession of the same to her, but the defendant No,1 failed to do so, on the contrary he is threatening to further transfer of possession of the suit land in order to create complications for the plaintiff and has also threatened to damage and waste the suit land.
5. The anplicant contested the said suit and reiterated the same facts of the F. T. Suit No,204/2010.
6. From the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following consolidated issues:-
1. Whether Dost Ali is owner of disputed Survey No,14/3 area 04.00 acres situated in deh Ghairabad Daur, Taluka Daur, District Shaheed Benazirabad which was granted to him in year 1985-1986 in open katchery as per land grant policy, after adopting all legal formalities and issued T.O. Form in his favour by the competent authority?
2. Whether in the year 1957-58 vide A Form No,10750 disputed survey No,14/3 (4.00 acres) along with other lands viz. S.No,15/1(4.00 acres) and 15/2 (4.00 acres) granted to Menhoon?
3. Whether the grant of disputed S.No,14/3(4.00 acres) in favour of Dost Ali was illegal and is a result of fraud, therefore, Executive District Officer (Revenue), Nawabshah vide his order dated 8.5.2003 rightly cancelled the same?
4. Whether Menhoon Khan being lawful owner and in possession of disputed survey No,14/3 (04.00 acres) legally sold the same to Mst. Farzana vide registered sale deed No,1373 dated 16.4.2005?
5. Whether the F.C. Suit No,204 of 2010 is not maintainable?
6. Whether F.C. Suit No,104 of 2011 is not maintainable?
7. Whether plaintiff of F.C. Suit No,204 of 2010 is entitled to relief sought for?
8. Whether plaintiff of F.C. Suit No,104 of 2011 is entitled to relief sought for?
9. What should the decree be?
7. Thereafter the parties led their evidence before the trial Court, who after hearing all the parties concerned passed the impugned judgment and decree as Stated above.
8. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the judgments and decrees passed by Courts below are against the facts, law, natural justice and evidence available on record. He further submitted that the learned lower Courts have not given the weight to the evidence of applicant's side though the ownership was established by him. He also submitted that the applicant was granted land in question in the year 1984-86 in open katchery and T.O. Form was issued to him and he was in possession of the land. He emphasized that the grant of respondent No,1 was cancelled due to violation of terms of grant of land and the documents were manipulated. He also submitted that the findings of lower Courts are erroneous and based on misreading and non-reading of evidence, hence are not sustainable under the law.
9. Against the above, learned counsel for respondents No,7 Mst. Farzana and respondent No,1 Menhoon Khan in R.A. No,52 of 2015 submitted that the land bearing S.No,15/1,15/2 and 14/3, total area (12-00 acres) was granted to respondent No,1 Menhoon Khan in the year 1957-58, he paid all the installments and T.O. Form was issued to him and in the year 1973 entry was made in Form-VII of the revenue record. The respondent No,1 Menhoon Khan sold out the land bearing S.Nos.15/1,15/2 and 14/3, total area (12-00) acres) to Mst. Farzana through registered sale deed in the year 2005 and such entry was also made in revenue record and possession of the said land was handed over to her. He further submitted that the applicant obtained bogus grant of S.No,14/3 (4-00) acres only and got false entry in revenue record, but on the application of respondent No,1 Menhoon Khan, the grant of applicant was cancelled by EDO (R), Shaheed Benazirabad. The applicant filed appeal before the learned Member Board of Revenue Sindh, which was also dismissed and then he filed F.C. Suit No,204/2010 before the Court of learned 1st. Senior Civil Judge, Nawabshah, which was also dismissed and he filed appeal before the learned District Judge, Shaheed Benazirabad, which too was dismissed by learned IInd: Additional District Judge, Shaheed Benazirabad. He lastly submitted that there are concurrent findings of both the Courts below on the facts and there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned consolidated judgment and decree, therefore, he submitted that both these revision applications are liable to be dismissed.
10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material available on record with their assistance.
11. The record reflects that respondent No,1 Menhoon Khan was granted land bearing S.No,15/1 (4- 00) acres, 15/2 (4-00) acres and 14/3 (4-00) acres, total area (12-00) acres, situated in deh Gharib Abad, Taluka Daur in the year 1957-58 and as per Form-A Serial No,10750 he paid all the installments and ultimately T.O. Form was issued in his favour and on 7.6.1973 such entry was made in record of rights in the name of respondent No,1 Menhoon Khan. He was in possession of above land (12-00 acres) and then he being owner of suit land, sold out it to Mst. Farzana through the registered sale deed bearing No,1373 dated 16.4.2005. Such mutation was recorded vide entry No,166 in Form-VII-B in the name of Mst. Farzana and possession was handed over to her. Record further reflects that the applicant forcibly occupied survey No,14/3 (4-00 acres) by claiming its ownership. The respondent No,1 Menhoon Khan moved an application to EDO (Revenue), SBA who after hearing the parties passed the order dated 8.5.2003 whereby cancelled the grant of applicant, which reads as under:- "I have heard the parties and perused the case papers and record produced by the tapedar of the beat. The applicant reiterating the same facts already mentioned in his application, has further stated that S.No,14/3 wrongly allotted to the opponent No,3, in his possession since its grant. This fact was confirmed by Mr. Ghulam Rasool Rind, Senior Clerk of Mukhtiarkar (Estate), Nawabshah, in his statement recorded on 8.5.2003, stating that the above S.No, was allotted to Menhon Khan s/o Khan Awan in deh Ghairabad Daur during the year 1957-58, all the installments were paid by the applicant and T.
0. Form No,405 dated 5.2.1969 was also issued to him but due to mistake S.No, 14/3 area 4-0 acres was doubly allotted to Dost All s/o Jiando Khan Dahree in the year 1985-86, he has also paid their full installments and TO Form No,18 dated 11.3.1997 was also issued to him.
' In view of the facts stated above S.No,14/3,15/1-2 area 12-0 acres in deh Ghairabad Daur, firstly was allotted to the applicant Menhon Khan s/o Khan Awan, which is intact and subsequent grant of S.No,14/3 area 4-0 acre of deh Ghairabad Daur in the name of Dost Ali s/o Jiando Khan Dahree is ordered to be cancelled. The application is allowed accordingly. "
12. The applicant challenged the order of EDO (Revenue) before Member Board of Revenue who maintained the same. The order (referred herein above) also indicates that the respondent No,1 Menhoon Khan was granted 15/1 (4-00) acres, 15/2(4-00) acres and 14/3 (4-00) acres total (12.00 acres) in the year 1957-58 and he paid all installments and T.O. Form was issued to him in the year 1969 and such entry was made in the revenue record in year 1973, but subsequently only S.No,14/3 (4-00) acres was wrongly allotted to Dost Ali, therefore, the subsequent grant of 14/3(4-00) acres to applicant Dost Ali was cancelled. Learned trial Court framed consolidated issues on relevant points and discussed them elaborately. The learned appellate Court in appeal has thoroughly discussed all these points and has concluded that applicant was not entitled to the grant of land, which already stood granted in favour of respondent No,l. The grant of land to the applicant was a bona fide mistake on the part of revenue official, which they rectified as soon as acquired such knowledge when the land was granted to the applicant by the authority concerned, it was in fact not available for grant, therefore, exercise of powers by the said authority was not legal or lawful.
13. From the above discussion, it is obvious that the respondent No,1 Menhoon Khan proved his case before the learned trial Court and even per order of EDO (Revenue), the grant of land to respondent No,1 Menhoon Khan was kept intact and subsequent erroneous grant of the applicant was cancelled. It is matter of record that the applicant has not challenged the registered sale deed executed by respondent No,1 Menhoon Khan in favour of respondent N4.7 Mst. Farzana in respect of selling the suit land to her in the year 2005, therefore, in my view both the Courts below have rightly recorded findings of facts on the basis of evidence available on record. The revisional jurisdiction can be invoked in the cases involving the illegal assumption, non-exercise or the irregularly exercised the jurisdiction. It cannot be invoked in the circumstances as stated above. The object of revision is to rectify the error committed by the subordinate Courts in exercise of jurisdiction. The scope of 115, C.P.C. Is clear that concurrent findings of Courts below could not be called in question through a revision petition, unless it was shown that the Courts below either had no jurisdiction or failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in them or had committed some illegality or material irregularity, resulting in gross injustice while deciding the suit and the appeal, the fact that a different view of the evidence could be taken by the Courts below was no ground for setting aside such findings in exercise of revisional jurisdiction by the High Court, unless said findings were shown to be perverse, Courts below while passing impugned judgments and decrees took account of every bit of evidence placed before them and were not shown to have overlooked any part of the record from their judicious consideration. In this regard, reference can safely be made to the case reported as Muhammad Idrees and others v. Muhammad Pervaiz and others (2010 SCM R 5).
14. In view of above, I am of the considered opinion that the learned counsel for the applicant has failed to point out any illegality or material irregularity in the impugned judgment to establish that the findings of the Courts below are based on misreading or non-reading of evidence or the same suffer from any jurisdictional defect warranting interference of this Court. Resultantly, I see no good reason to differ with the concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the Courts below, therefore, finding no merit in these civil revisions, I dismiss the same with no order as to costs. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.