' This revision petition arises out of a suit for declaration filed by the petitioners on 23-7-1981 in the Court of Civil Judge, Sheikhupura which was resisted by the respondents. After recording evidence of the parties on the various issues arising out of the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 8-2-1988. The petitioners' appeal was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge vide his judgment and decree dated 3-11-1990.
2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at the pre-admission stage and carefully perused the material on the record. The petitioners' learned counsel raised the following points:--
(i) The land allotted to Jammu and Kashmir refugees no longer remains part of the compensation pool and cannot be allotted to any other person by virtue of the provisions of para. 4(a) of the Rehabilitation Scheme, 1956. In this connection he relies on:
(a) Sakina Bibi v. Mamla (PLD 1977 Lah. 202).
(b) Allah Lok v. Irshadul Hassan (PLD 1982 Lah. 831).
(c) Muhammad Din v. Allah Lok (1989 SCMR 323).
(d) Malik Muhammad Ismail v. Settlement Commissioner (1992 CLC 282).
(c) Atta-ul-Haq Khan v. Settlement Department (1994 MLD 1908).
(ii) Nazar Muhammad predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners was allotted land on 18-12-1953 on temporary basis and thereafter it could not be allotted or confirmed in the name of Mst. Hakumat- ul-Nisa;
(iii) the admission of Nazar Muhammad deceased that land was allotted to him on 21-2-1964 being contrary to the record was not binding on him. In this connection reliance was placed on the following judgments:
(a) Ahmad Khan v. Rasul Shah (PLD 1975 SC 311).
(b) Barkhurdar v. Muhammad Razzaq (PLD 1989 SC 749).
(c) Naseer Ahmad v. Asghar Ali (1989 MLD 4523).
(d) Cantonment Board, Sialkot v. Haji Abdul Majid Chughtai (1989 ALD 429).
(e) Mst. Dharan Bibi v. Khushi Muhammad (1992 ALD 667).
(iv) The appellate Court illegally dismissed the petitioners' application for amendment of the plaint to incorporate therein the relief of possession which caused serious prejudice to them.
3. On the other hand the respondents' learned counsel urged as under:--
(i) It was neither proved that Nazar Muhammad deceased was a Jammu and Kashmir refugee nor established that land was ever allotted to him in the year 1953;
(ii) the land was lawfully allotted and confirmed in the name of Mst. Hakumat-ul-Nisa, a claimant displaced person, on 5-3-1963 who sold it in favour of Mahfooz Hussain and Manzoor Hussain respondents Nos.1 and 2 through sale mutation attested on 26-3-1963 (Exh. D.6); or
(iii) on his own, showing the land was allotted to Nazar Muhammad deceased for maintenance purposes vide order dated 21-2-1964. Since the land already stood confirmed in the name of Mst.
Hakumat-ulNisa it could not have been lawfully allotted to Nazar Muhammad deceased for the purposes of maintenance; and
(iv) the petitioners' application for amendment of the plaint was rightly rejected by the appellate Court.
4. In the plaint, it was specifically pleaded that the plaintiffs being displaced persons from Jammu and Kashmir were owners in possession of the land measuring 62 Kanals 17 Marlas as allottees vide order dated 21-2-1964 passed by the A.C/DSC(L). They produced Piar Ahmad Patwari Halqa P.W.1 who brought on the record the entry of "Roznamcha Waqiati" Exh. P.2 which also referred to allotment of Nazar Muhammad dated 21-2-1964. Abdur Razzaq P.W.2 specifically stated that land was allotted to Nazar Muhammad in the year 1964. The petitioners could not be allowed to deviate from the pleadings and the definite stance taken by them before the Courts below regarding the date and year of allotment of land in favour of Nazar Muhammad deceased. Moreover, the petitioners never made any move till today to seek amendment of the plaint so as to correct the date of allotment. They had, of course, filed an application before the appellate Court for amendment of the plaint to incorporate the relief of possession as well. It has not been urged even in the present revision petition that the land was originally allotted to Nazar Muhammad deceased on 18-12-1953. This being the position the petitioners cannot be allowed to deviate from their original stand and set up a new case regarding the allotment of land allegedly made in favour of Nazar Muhammad deceased on 18-12-1953. The petitioners' learned counsel has referred to the application submitted by Nazar Muhammad deceased for review of the order dated 12-5-1973 in which he had stated that disputed land was allotted to him on 18-124953. The contents of para. (1) of .The said application at the most show that at one stage. Nazar Muhammad had claimed that land was allotted to him on 18-12-1953. This self-serving claim cannot be equated with evidence of allotment of land. Even otherwise, no evidence could be led contrary to the pleadings. Therefore, the application Exh. D.5 does not in any manner advance the petitioners' case. It may also be mentioned that in his detailed report dated 30-4-1973 (Exh. D.2) the Consolidation Officer, Sheikhupura had observed, "there is no doubt about it that Nazar Muhammad is not a Jammu and Kashmir refugee nor is it proved from the file." He also observed that no material like a Ration Card or a Permit or a Registration from the Ministry of Jammu and Kashmir or movement orders from one place to another issued by the said Ministry were brought on the record. The ADC(C)/Additional Commissioner (L) concurred with the said report who held in his order dated 12- 5-1973 that neither the land in question was regularly allotted to Nazar Muhammad nor he could have been allotted the land which already stood allotted to a refugee claimant i,e, Mst. Hakumat- ulNisa. In the civil suit the orders dated 12-5-1973 and 14-7-1975 passed by the ADC(C)/Addl.
Commissioner(L) were not challenged. The claim regarding allotment made in favour of Nazar Muhammad was specifically denied in the written statement. In their evidence the petitioners merely attempted to prove allotment of land in their favour on the basis of the order dated 21-2- 1964 passed by the Assistant Commissioner/DSC(L). They did not even remotely hint at the earlier allotment said to have been made in favour of Nazar Muhammad deceased in the year 1953.
5. The argument raised by the petitioners' learned counsel that an admission contrary to the record is not binding on a party is academically correct but does not hold good in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. Had the plaintiffs pleaded that land was allotted to Nazar Muhammad in the year 1953 and brought the relevant material on the record to prove it then any admission contrary to the record would not have been binding on them. But in the instant case the plaintiffs specifically stated in the plaint that the disputed land was allotted to Nazar Muhammad on 21-2-1964. The same fact was sought to be proved through oral evidence. Neither the plaint was amended to incorporate therein the factum of allotment allegedly made in favour of Nazar Muhammad in the year 1953 nor any allotment order pertaining to the year 1953 was brought on the record. In this background, the plaintiffs cannot take advantage of the legal principle that an admission contrary to the record is not binding on a party. Hence the judgments cited by the petitioners' learned counsel need no elaborate discussion. Likewise, the other judgments relating to the petitioners' first argument that land allotted to Jammu and Kashmir refugees temporarily cannot be allotted to any other person need not be discussed as no valid allotment in favour of Nazar Muhammad deceased was established prior to allotment and confirmation of the land in favour of Mst. Hakumat-ul-Nisa deceased.
6. For the foregoing discussion, I do not find any merit in this revision petition which is dismissed in limine.