1. ' JAVID IQBAL, J.--These two petitions are connected in the sense that they are directed against the orders of the Lahore High Court, Lahore whereby civil revisions of the petitioners were dismissed.
2. Since the same question arises in both these petitions these are being taken up together.
3. ' Briefly the facts are that the respective petitioners filed suits for declaration against the Province of Punjab etc. Respondents to the effect that they were owners in possession of the disputed property in each case and that the construction raised by them was part of the each property, and that the notice given by the respondent for vacating the same was illegal, void and ineffective and further that the respondents should be restrained through permanent injunction from interfering in their respective possession and demolishing the constructions raised. The trial Court dismissed the suit on the ground that the petitioners were not the legal transferees in both the cases and that they were merely encroachers/trespassers of the excess areas and that also the constructions raised by them were illegal. Despite this finding the trial Court directed the respondents to transfer the excess areas to the respective petitioners as they had raised constructions thereon and were in possession of the same. On appeal of the respondents the findings of fact recorded by the trial Court were upheld whereas the directions passed regarding transfer of the excess areas to the petitioners by way of sale etc. Were set aside. The petitioners in both the cases challenged the aforesaid orders by way of civil revisions which have been dismissed by the Lahore High Court as stated above. Hence the present petitions.
4. ' Learned counsel for the petitioners before us attempted to argue that the petitioners in both the cases had raised constructions on the excess areas and that the trial Court was correct in arriving at the conclusion that the excess areas be transferred to them as they were in possession of the same. The findings of fact against the petitioners are that they are encroachers and trespassers on the government land and that therefore they had no locus standi to ask for an injunction. It was in this background that the appellate Court had set aside the directions of the trial Court in that respect to the respondents which had beep upheld by the revisional Court.
5. ' Since the finding of fact is that the petitioners are trespassers, these are not fit cases for interference. As a result both these petitions namely Civil Petitions for Leave to Appeal Nos. 73 and 74 of 1983 are hereby dismissed.