SYED ARSHAD ALI, J.- Through the instant revision petition, the petitioners have challenged the judgments and decrees of both the learned Courts below, whereby the suit of the petitioners for declaration etc was concurrently dismissed.
2. Essential facts of the case are that prior to institution of the present suit, the plaintiffs/petitioners had filed earlier suit in the year 1997 on the same subject matter, however the said suit was withdrawn with permission to file a fresh one. Thus, the present suit bearing No. 231/1 was filed on 31.07.2004 by the plaintiffs against the Provincial Government for declaration to the effect that the suit property total measuring 1285 banal 7 Marlas belongs to them on the basis of registered sale deeds mentioned in the plaint. They have further challenged certain notifications issued in the year 1972 & 1975 declaring the suit property as a forest being ineffective upon their rights.
3. On being summoned, the respondent/ Provincial Government contested the suit in its written statement on various factual and legal objections. The learned Trial Court has narrowed down the controversy between the parties to ten (10) issues and the parties were allowed to produce their respective evidence which they fully availed.
4. On conclusion of the trial, the learned Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 10.09.2008 had dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs/petitioners being aggrieved of the said judgment and decree had filed a civil appeal bearing No. 33/13 before the learned Additional District Judge/lzafi Zilla Qazi-11, Swat. The learned appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 08.10.2009 also dismissed the appeal. Hence, the present revision petition.
5. Arguments of learned counsel for the parties were heard and record of the case was perused with their able assistance.
6. According to the revenue record in respect of the suit property which was produced by the Patwari Halqa exhibited as Ex PW 5/1 for the year 1985/86, the entire suit property has been shown as protected forest in possession of the Forest Department. However, Khasra No. 3070 measuring 4 Karla] 1 Marla has been shown in possession of one Shehzada. The claim of the plaintiffs is based on certain registered deeds i.e. registered deed bearing No. 194-195 dated 16.08.1965 exhibited as Ex P\t\"/2 and Ex PW .4/2, registered deed No. 178-179 dated 31.08.1968 exhibited as Ex PW 4/3 and registered deed No. 266 to 269 dated 10.05.1972 exhibited as Ex PW 1/3. The said deeds were produced by the official witness namely Muhammad Rahim Reader/Clerk of Tehsildar Khwaza Khela, Swat and as such there is no doubt that the said documents were produced Cram ]awful custody which are registered. According, to the said deeds, the plaintiffs had purchased some property from Mian Said Wahab, Sher Afzal and Baghdadi Mian. Since, at the relevant time, there was no settlement in the area, therefore the property which was purchased through the aforesaid deeds were identified by boundaries.
7. I have carefully perused the said deeds which do not give any impression that all the vendors had sold to the plaintiffs any land which is comprised of forest. !he plaintiffs in order to further substantiate their claim have produced Gul Zada (plaintiff No. 4) as PW-1 who has only produced the relevant registered deeds. They have also produced Amir Zada as PW-2 and Wakil Zada as PW-3. Although the said witnesses have orally stated that there are no forest trees on the suit property.
8. In District Swat, the settlement under the provision of West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 started in the year 1981 and was completed in the year 1985/86. The plaintiffs could not produce any evidence establishing that on the basis of the said deeds., no other land was allocated to them in the settlement, whereas the revenue record clearly shows that the suit property is a protected forest which is in possession of the Forest Department and the nature or the property according to the revenue record is Dhaka Darakhtan.
9. At this juncture, it would the appropriate to refer to the brief history/legal position of the forest situated in the erstwhile princely State of Swat, Dir and Chitral which is as under:- After the accession of the erstwhile State of Swat to the territory of Pakistan, regarding the title of forest situated in the State of Swat Notification No. 1521 dated 15.09.1972, the Provincial Government under the relevant para of the said Notification had declared all the forests in the princely State of Swat as State property. The relevant para of the said Notification reads as under: - b) All forest situated in the former State of Swat shall be the State property (subject to payment of 15% of their income as royalty to the local right holders.
Similarly, the erstwhile Forest Act, 1927 was extended to Provincially Administered Tribal Areas in terms of Article 247 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 and through Not No SOFT (FAD) V-168171
(i) dated 20 December 1975 all ,forests in the Provincial Administered Tribal Areas of Chitral, Dir, Swat, Kalam and Malakand protected areas have been declared as protected forest under the provisions of Forest Act 1927.
Indeed, under section 29 of the Forest Act 1927, the Provincial Government was empowered to declare the provisions of the Act applicable to any forest land or wasteland. The said section of law reads as under:-
29. Protected Forests:--- (1) The Provincial Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare the provisions of this Chapter applicable to any forest-land or wasteland which is not included in a reserved forest, but which is the property of Government, or over which the Government has proprietary rights, or to the whole or any part of the forest-produce of which the Government is cranial.
(2) The forest-land and waste- lands comprised in any MI/ notification shall be called a "protected forest".
(3) No such notification shall be made unless the nature yard extent of the rights of Government and of private persons in or over the forest-land or waste-land comprised therein have been inquired into and recorded at a survey or settlement, or in such other manner us the Provincial Government thinks sufficient. Ever Such record shall be presumed to be correct wail the contrary is proved:th Provided that, if; in the case of any forest-land or wasteland, the Provincial Government thinks that such inquiry . turd record are necessary , but that they occupy such length of time as in the meantime to endanger the rights of Government, the Provincial Government may, pending such inquiry and record, declare such land to the a protected forest, but so as not to abridge or affect any existing rights of individuals or communities.
Therefore, in pursuance to the Notification No. 1521 dated 05.09.1972 and under section 29 of the ibid Act, the then Provincial Government issued another Notification dated 20.12.1975 which reads as under:- "No.SOFT(F .4 D) V-168/71 (i): In exercise of the powers con/erred Section 29 of the Forest Act, 1927(Act XVI of 1927) the Government of North 'Vest Frontier Province are pleased to: a. Apply the provisions of Chapter IV of the said Act to all Forest Land in Chitral, Dir swat and Kalam protected area and b. Declare all the said forest land as protected forests."
10. In this regard, the defendants produced Muhammad Riaz Range Officer as DW-1 who has produced the relevant evidence and working plan, whereby the forest was divided into various compartments in the year 1964/65. However, in his cross examination he has stated that in the year 1975, fresh working plan was prepared and according to his record the suit property is forest of the Provincial Government. It appears that on the basis of this uncontroverted legal position, the disputed property was reflected in the first settlement as protected forest.
11. Indeed it is settled law that a very strong presumption of correctness is attached to the entries in the periodical record made in ever first settlement. The august Supreme Court of Pakistan also confronted in a similar situation in Allah Baksh's case reported as 2001 SCMR 363 that:- "This Court generally does not undertake the process of re-appraisal of evidence but in the instant ease we did undertake this process and reached the conclusion that the appellant has miserably failed to prove on record by any credible evidence that omission of his naive as Lath Band Bazgar in the first ever Settlement Record for the year 1962-65 of the village was without lawful authority. In point of fact, the appellant was not Lath Band Bazgar of the land but was a co-sharer to the extent of 1/2 share and mortgagee of 1/2 share of the land belonging to respondent No. 1 which entries were duly recorded in the aforesaid record with clarity when the status of the appellant as Lath Band Bazgar was not in existence how the hierarchy in the Settlement Department could record such status of the appellant. it is settled law that presumption of truth (if the highest degree is attached to the entries of the first ever Settlement Record of a revenue estate: In order to dislodge this entry extraordinary strong evidence. is required which in the instant case, is not at all available On the record".
Likewise, the august Supreme Court of Pakistan in case of "Evacuee Trust Property Board vs Chula in Rasul Kokhar" reported as 1990 SCMR 725 has held that:- "Entries made in revenue record regarding membership are presumptive evidence of title, which shift the burden on the person who challenges their correctness to establish otherwise".
The said view was also re-affirmed by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan in case of "Fida Hussain vs Abdul Aziz" PLD 2005 Supreme Court 343 in the following manner:- "Presumption of correctness would be attached to such entries of record of Rights which Were properly maintained by revenue authorities"
12. Although the plaintif fs have challenged the said notifications but at a very belated stage which is obviously time barred and furthermore, the plaintiffs could not rebut through confidence inspiring evidence that the entries entered in the first settlement were without any justification.
13. Thus, the Findings of both the learned Courts below are based on correct appreciation of facts and law which do not call for interference. Accordingly this petition having no merit is hereby dismissed..