1. This civil revision calls in question the judgment and decree dated 10.04.2014 and 05.05.2011, passed by the learned Courts below, while decreeing the suit for declaration with consequential relief of possession filed by predecessor-in-interest of the Respondents No. 1 to 5 and Respondent No.6.
2. The facts, as depict from the record are that, the predecessor-in-interest of the Respondents No. 1 to 5 and Respondent No.6/plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief on the ground, that the suit property was purchased on 02.05.1979 through registered sale-deed No.9421 from one Muhammad Akmal Khan; that the mutation on the basis of the sale-deed was entered in the revenue record in favour of respondents; that the petitioner entered into negotiation with the respondents predecessor-in-interest of the Respondents No. 1 to 5 and Respondent No.6 to purchase the suit land but subsequently without giving any notice to the respondents, started acquisition proceedings by issuing notice under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894; that on hue and cry of Respondents No. 1 and 2, the suit land was deleted from the notification issued under Section 4 of the Act ibid and the petitioner restarted the negotiation of sale with the respondents; that the respondents, in order to protect their property, filed a Constitutional petition W.P.No.14002/1994, praying therein, that the petitioner be restrained to use the land of respondents; that the writ petition was disposed of having been withdrawn with the observation, that if the respondents prove their title, the petitioner will compensate them in accordance with law; that the respondents filed the instant suit which was contested by the other side mainly on the ground, that the suit land was purchased by the petitioner-authority twenty years back through an agreement to sell from the attorney of Muhammad Akmal Khan and the petitioner has developed the land; and lastly the respondents have no concern with the suit land.
2. 3.The learned Trial Court, after completing all the codal and legal formalities, decreed the suit; against which an appeal was filed which was dismissed. Hence, this civil revision.
3. 4.Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly argued, that the suit land was purchased by the petitioner-authority through power of attorney executed by the original owner i.e. Muhammad Akmal Khan, the land has been developed and respondents have no concern whatsoever with the land in question. Learned counsel also argued, that the suit filed by the respondents is hopelessly barred by time.
4. 5.In response thereof, learned counsel for the respondents supported the findings recorded by the learned Courts below and submitted, that the respondents are the lawful owners of the suit land on the basis of a validly executed and registered sale-deed.
5. 6.Heard. Record perused.
6. 7.During the course of arguments, with the assistance of learned counsel for the parties, the record as well as the findings recorded by the learned Courts below were surveyed. The petitioner, who is an Authority, is claiming the title of the suit land on the ground, that the same was purchased by the authority through an agreement to sell against consideration from an attorney of the original owner i.e. Muhammad Akmal Khan but unfortunately, the petitioner has miserably failed to place on record or to produce any document during the course of recording the evidence to prove its claim. Neither the agreement to sell nor the power of attorney in any manner whatsoever was brought on record whereas on the other hand, the respondents placed on record, in their evidence, duly executed and registered sale-deed, mutation and copy of the notification. All these documents are sufficient to prove, that the suit land is owned by the respondents and the suit land has neither been purchased nor acquired by the petitioner-authority and the same is being used by the petitioner-authority which is not only against the law but also the Constitutional promises.
7. The provision of Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 says, that nobody can use the land of anyone except in accordance with law, therefore, in these circumstances, it can safely be held, that the petitioner-authority has illegally and unlawfully encroached/possessed the land of the respondents. The respondents are entitled to the compensation according to the prevalent market rate.
8. 8.Even otherwise, there is hardly any reason to interfere with the well worded concurrent findings of the learned Courts below. I am fortified by the esteemed judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, in the case of Cantonment Board through Executive Officer Cantt. Board, Rawalpindi v.
9. Ikhlaq Ahmed and others (2014 SCM R 161), Mst. Zaitoon Begum v. Nazar Hussain and another (2014 SCM R 1469) and Noor Muhammad and others v. Mst. Azmat-e-Bibi (2012 SCM R 1373).
10. 9.Resultantly, this civil revision has no force and the same is dismissed with no order as to cost.