SHAHID MUBEEN, J.--- Through this civil ,revision filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 the petitioner questions the judgment and decree dated 30.10.2012 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Nankana Sahib and judgment and decree dated 11.05.2012 passed by learned Civil Judge 1st Class, Nankana Sahib.
2. Brief facts giving rise to the filing of this revision petition are that respondent No: 3 being owner of land measuring 05 kanals, detail of which has been described in Para No. 1 of the plaint, sold the same to the petitioner vide registered sale-deed dated 20.08.1995 and also delivered the possession of the land to him. The petitioner purchased the land from respondent No. 3 after due scrutiny of revenue record and payment of land at market value, hence, he is a bona fide purchaser for consideration without notice. Representatives of respondent No. 3 intended to interfere in possession of the petitioner illegally and unlawfully whereupon petitioner came to know that respondent No. 2 had passed an order dated' 29.05.1999 without notice to him and cancelled the PTO/PTD issued by Settlement Department in favour of respondent No. 3 and the mutation attested on the basis thereof and resumed the land in favour of the State. The petitioner instituted a suit for declaration to the effect that order dated 29.05,1999 is illegal and without authority . He also sought permanent injunction restraining the respondents from making illegal interference in possession of the petitioner and from initiating any proceedings on the basis of order dated 29.05.1999. Respondents No. 1 and 2 contested the suit by filing written statements, whereas respondent No. 3 was proceeded against ex parte. Out of the divergent pleading of the parties the learned trial Court framed relevant issues. The parties produced their oral as well as documentary evidence to prove their respective contentions. The learned trial Court after recording the evidence of both the parties vide judgment and decree dated 11.05.2012 dismissed the suit. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner prefer red an appeal before learned Additional District Judge, Nankana Sahib who vide judgment and decree dated 30.10.2012 dismissed the same.
Hence, this civil revision.
3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that concurrent findings of fact recorded by the two Courts below suf fer from misreading and non-reading of oral as well as documentary evidence available on the record.
4. On the other hand, learned AAG assisted by learned counsel' for respondent No. 3 has supported the impugned judgments and decrees of the two Courts below .
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. The learned trial Court framed the issues according to the pleadings of the parties. Issue No. 1 is reproduced herein below: "Whether the act of cancellation of PTO/PTD and subsequent mutations by defendant No. 2 vide order dated 29.05.1999 is against natural justice, against fact as well as law , ineffective qua the rights of the plaintiff? OPP The burden to prove this issue was placed upon the petitioner . The petitioner did not produce any iota of evidence that PTD was validly executed in favour of Haq Nawaz. Even PTD was not produced in the evidence. Respondent No. 1 produced Rafiq Gull Khan, Tehsildar as DW-2 who deposed that PTD of Haq Nawaz was declared bogus by the District Collector . He further deposed that no fee is shown to have been paid in the record of Settlement Department qua PTD and no entry has been found in C.S.C.-IV Register in the Settlement Departm ent. He further deposed that property in dispute since 1939-40 to 1987 had been shown in the ownership of Provincial Government which status is still continued. He further deposed that at the time of mutation the suit property was in the name of Provincial Government. He further deposed that Settlement Department has no right to transfer the property of Provincial Government. This statement of DW-2 is supported by documentary evidence starting from Exh.D/1 1 Jamabandi for the year 1979-80 showing the Provincial Government as owner of the suit property and same is in possession of Executive Engineer , Engineering Works Department. Same is the position with Exh.D/12 to D/15 Jamabandi for the year 2003-04 showing the possession of Executive Engineer , Engineering Works Department. When the land belongs to Provincial Government then how the same can be transferred by the Settlement Department. No document has been produced to show that the same is Evacuee property . The District Collector being custodian of the prope rty has competently cancelled the PTD which has been obtained by practicing fraud, misrepresentation and collusion with the officials of Settlement Department. The statement of DW- 2 goes unrebutted which is supported by evidence. Exh.D/16 is impugned order dated 15.05.1999 which is a self- speaking order .
7. Even otherwise, the title of Haq Nawaz was defective as the obtained PTD by practicing fraud and forgery , hence, order of transfer is void, therefore, petitioner's claim for bona fide purchaser on the basis of registered sale- deed is not justiciable. Reliance is placed on case-laws reported as "Syed Wajihul Hassan Zaidi v. Government of the Punjab and others" (PLD 2004 SC 801) and "Province of the Punjab through Secretary Settlement and Rehabilitation Department, Lahore v. Akhtar Ali Khan and others" (2007 SCMR 459). The petitioner would sink or survive with his vendor and would not be protected under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
Reliance is placed on case-laws reported as "Talib Hussain and others v. Member , Board of Revenue and others" (2003 SCMR 549), "Haji Allah Bakhsh v. Abdul Rehman and others" (1995 SCMR 459) and "Rasheed Ahmad and 2 others v. Additional Commissioner (Rev .) Notified Officer Gujranwala Division, Gujranwala and others" (2007 CLC 1801 ).
8. This is a case of concurrent findings of facts recorded by the two Courts below which do not suffer from any misreading or non-reading of oral as well as documentary evidence available on the record. The Courts below have decided the case in accordance with the evidence available on the record. This Court cannot take a different view from one arrived at on the basis of evidence available on the record by the two Courts below . Reference may be made to case-law reported as "Alamgir Khan through L.Rs. and othe rs v. Haji Abdul Sittar Khan and others"
(2009 SCMR 54 ).
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any illegality and mate rial irregularity in the impugned judgments and decrees of the two Courts below .
10. Sequel to the above, this civil revision being devoid of any force is dismissed. No order as to costs.