MUHAMMAD YOUNIS THAHEEM, J.---This Court proposes to decide the revision petition against the judgment and decree dated 11.3.2016 passed by learned Additional District Judge-III, Bannu and order of learned Executing Court dated 04.11.2015.
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent instituted suit against defendants for declaration and injunction that he was earlier allotted plot in the Bannu Township Scheme which he wanted to return back but defendants refused to do the same, so he sold out the same plot to one Haji Fazal Malook. Afterward the financial position of respondent/ plaintiff improved so he applied for another plot which was allotted vide letter No.BU-1598 dated 23.4.1988. The present petitioners vide letter No.5272-74/BTS/PH-1/BU/1598/M dated 26.4.2000, was served with notice that they are going to cancel the allotment of plot No.79 Sector-B Phase-I, Bannu Township, so, that notice was challenged by the respondent by filing declaratory suit along with other reliefs for permanent injunction to the effect that the allotment of plot owned by plaintiff should not, be cancelled and the possession should not be intervened.
3. On conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Court dismissed suit of the plaintiff/present respondent. Afterward the present respondent filed regular civil appeal before the learned appellate Court and after hearing, the appeal was allowed and judgment of the learned trial Court was set aside and suit was decreed as prayed for "subject to payment of admissible compensation" to the authority. The present petitioners, however, challenged the above judgment and decree, passed by the learned appellate Court dated 30.9.2006 by filing revision petition No.43-B/2006, but the same revision petition was dismissed for non-prosecution, which was not further challenged and the decree passed by the learned appellate Court, attained finality.
4. The present respondent filed execution petition No.09/10 on 17.4.2012 before the learned executing Court/Civil Judge-IX, Bannu which was later on entrusted to the learned Civil Judge-V, Bannu. The learned executing Court proceeded further and for this purpose framed issues in the light of judgment of learned Appellate Court dated 30.9.2006. However, petitioners filed objection petition on 01.11.2012 but it was not pressed rather vide order sheet dated 04.12.2014, request for adjournment for effecting compromise was made and thereafter on 19.10.2015 statement of attorney for decree holders was recorded as APW-1 and on 04.11.2015. The learned counsel for judgment debtors cross-examined him and judgment debtors produced Muhibullah as DW-1 and thereafter vide impugned order dated 04.11.2015, the learned Executing Court/Civil Judge-V, Bannu fixed Rs.61,000/- as fair and just compensation which decree holders shall pay to the judgment debtors. The relevant portion of the impugned order of executing Court dated 04.11.2015 is reproduced as below:-- "From the evidence adduced before the Court, it came to light that after escalation of prices in the vicinity of the property in dispute, the difference in the original price and the price till date of the final decree is about Rs. 61, 000/-. Judgment-debtors did not rebut this difference of price shown by decree-holders and counsel for the parties left the matter for the decision of the Court. Having no other materials available except of that produced by decree-holders, this Court is left with no option but to accept evidence produced by decree-holders and accordingly the above amount is fixed as the fair and just compensation which decree-holders shall pay to the judgment-debtors.
Parties are satisfied with the outcome, hence, the decree having been fully satisfied, the execution is struck off."
5. Thus the present petitioners Nos.1 and 2 challenged the above order dated 04.11.2015 passed by the learned executing Court by filing appeal. After hearing the parties, the learned appellate Court/ Additional District Judge-III, Bannu dismissed the appeal along with two applications regarding restraining the respondent/plaintiff from construction etc and requisitioning the Bailiff's report vide judgment dated 11.3.2016. The present petitioners still aggrieved have filed instant petition.
6. Arguments heard and record perused.
7. From the perusal of record it reveals that plot in question was purchased by the respondent in the year 1996. The plaintiff paid the amount of plot according to the prevalent price when people were not interested to purchase the plots. In the year 2000 the petitioners cancelled its allotment vide letter No.5272-74/BTS/PH-1/BU/1598/M dated 26.4.2000 which was challenged and was set aside by the learned appellate Court. The revision petition filed by present petitioners was dismissed in default vide order dated 14.12.2011 and was not challenged further so the judgment and decree of learned appellate Court dated 30.9.2006 attained finality and thereafter the present respondent No.1 filed execution petition. The learned executing Court in the light of judgment of the learned appellate Court determined the admissible compensation as Rs.61,000/- vide order dated 04.11.2015 and as discussed above the appeal filed by the petitioners has been dismissed.
8. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned order of learned executing Court and that of learned appellate Court are against law, facts as the present market value of the plot is more than 17,00,000/- and the decree under execution is not executable decree as suit was only to the extent of relief of declaration for cancellation of letter No.5272- 74/BTS/PH1/BU/1598/M dated 26.4.2000 and now the respondent No. 1 is seeking relief of possession.
9. As discussed above the judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court dated 30.9.2006 has attained finality and the learned executing Court had determined the "admissible compensation" as Rs.61000/- so such argument that decree is not executable at execution stage is not valid as petitioners participated in the execution proceedings.
10.Moreover, if during litigations after notice for cancellation of plot and filing of suit by the respondent No. 1, the possession has been forcibly taken by the petitioners, which is evident from the report of Bailiff Bazeed Khan dated 18.7.2012, it proves that the possession of suit plot which was taken has been delivered to the plaintiff/respondent.
11.From the perusal of record it reveals that the Judgment and decree passed by the learned appellate Court dated 30.9.2006 has attained finality and it is also observed by this Court that Rs.61,000/- are in addition to the sale price of the plot which the respondent had already paid in the year 1996. The present petitioners kept mum and raised no objection about the allotment of plot in his name since its allotment till 2000 but all of a sudden served him with impugned notice for cancellation. No arguments worth consideration has been advanced as to under what rules the petitioners are asking for additional amount of said "admissible compensation", while they have been paid prevalent price, however, as present respondent No.1 agreed to pay the same to get rid off from litigation and to utilize the plot for its beneficial use for his family and wants to raise construction over it but the petitioners on one way or the other are creating hurdles either to blackmail him or to fetch more money from him while this Court would not allow. No other point worth consideration has been pointed out except the above discussed one. No illegality, irregularity, misreading or non-reading of record has been pointed out. So in view of above, this petition being bereft of merit is dismissed.