SHAHID KHAN, J.- The subject writ petition has been filed by Noor Khan & 11 others, the petitioners, under Article 199 of the Constitution .of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 ("the Constitution"), and they sought the following prayer: "It is therefore humbly prayed that, on acceptance of this writ petition, the impugned judgments/orders dated 25.07.2022, of the Respondent No.3 and the order and judgment of Respondent No.2 dated 15.09.2023, may kindly be set aside and the order dated 18.02.2022 of the Additional Deputy Commissioner Swat may kindly be maintained in respect of dismissal of suit of the respondent No.1. Any other remedy, which is just, appropriate and efficacious may please be also awarded in favour of petitioners."
2. In essence, the sole and simple question involved herein for determination of the Court is that whether this Court, in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction of judicial review, can issue a writ as the petitioners have prayed for. Before proceed with to answer this question, the Court shall describe the facts of the controversy between the parties which are necessary for the purpose of the matter in hand.
3. Initially, the respondent No.1 approached to the revenue hierarchy i.e., the Additional Assistant Commissioner (Revenue), Swat, through filing an application for ejectment of the present petitioners from the landed property comprising on survey No.393, 394, 396, 450, 451, 452 & 453 total measuring 21 Kanal & 02 Marla, situated at Moza Marghuzar, Tehsil Babozai, District Swat, on the ground of his bona fide personal need. He also sought recovery of produces for the last 25 years and onward till eviction of the petitioners from the subject property, in accordance with law.
4. In response to summons of the Court, the petitioners appeared and instead of submitting their written reply to the main eviction petition, they submitted an application for rejection of the eviction petition on certain grounds mentioned therein, which was resisted by the respondent No.1 through filing his written reply thereto and the learned trial Court after hearing arguments of learned counsel for the parties, dismissed the application of the petitioners for the rejection of main eviction petition vide order dated 15.12.2021. The petitioners have assailed the aforesaid order in appeal before the Court of learned Additional Deputy Commissioner, Swat, which was allowed vide order dated 18.02.2022, and consequently, the ejectment petition of the respondent No.1 was dismissed. Against which, the respondent No.1 approached to the Court of learned Additional Commissioner, Malakand Division at Saidu Sharif, District Swat, through filing a revision petition and the same was allowed vide order dated 25.07.2022 in the following terms: "In view of the above facts and arguments put forth by both the counsels, it transpires that the present petition is a recorded owner of the suit property and he has the right to file ejectment- cum-produce application against the present respondents.
Available record reveals that an agreement/deed No.70 dated 23.09.2010 whereby the present respondents have admitted/acknowledged ownership of the present petitioner and have requested to the present petitioner for construction of shelter homes through an NGO funded organization because their homes were demolished during flood 2010 and they also admitted in the said agreement that they will vacate the landed property as and when required by the present petitioner. Furthermore, the trial Court has committed a gross illegality by treating application of the present petitioner of ejectment-cum-produce as partition application.
As a sequel to the above discussion, the instant revision petition is remanded to the trial Court with the direction to decide suit of the present petitioner for ejectment-cum-produce under the law. Order of the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Swat is set aside and the instant revision petition is accepted."
5. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioners filed a revision petition No.395/MBR-II/2022 before the Worthy Senior Member Board of Revenue, which was dismissed after hearing arguments of learned counsel for the parties vide order, dated 15.09.2023 and upheld the order of learned Additional Commissioner, Malakand Division at Saidu Sharif, dated 25.07.2022. It obliged the petitioners to approach this Court for achieving the target through filing the subject writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution being no alternate adequate remedy was available to them.
6. Arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners were heard and record gone through with his valuable assistance.
7. It is transparent from the floating facts surfaced on the face of record that in the column of ownership of revenue record, the subject property is duly entered in the name of respondent No.1 as his sole ownership, which has got strong presumption of correctness, unless otherwise proved or substituted with new entry through legal course, therefore, there is no legal bar against an owner to file an ejectment petition-cum-produces against his/her tenant(s) under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Tenancy Act, 1952. So far as the applicability of Martial Law Regulation No.122 & 123 (MLR-122 or MLR- 123) and the orders/judgments of Deputy Land Commissioners, Swat, referred to by learned counsel for the petitioners are concerned, which have no bearing on the fate of the subject case as the ownership of the respondent No.1 in respect of the subject property has been very much clear from the revenue record. As such, the impugned orders/ judgments of the learned Additional Commissioner, Malakand Division, dated 25.07.2022 and that of the Worthy Member-II, Board of Revenue, Peshawar, dated 15.09.2023, are seemingly well reasoned, based on correct appreciation of the material available on record and law on the subject.
8. In view of the above discussion, learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to pinpoint any illegality, material irregularity or misapplication of law in the impugned orders/ judgments passed by the respondents No.2 & 3 respectively, hence the same are maintained.
9. Resultantly, the subject writ petition stands dismissed in limine, being bereft of merits.