' The Civil Revisions Nos. 2000/94, 2434/94, 2435/94, 2436/94, 2437/94, 2438/94, 2439/94, 2440/94 and 2441/94 have arisen out of the suits filed by the petitioners against the respondents, which were dismissed by a consolidated judgment and decree, dated 26-5-1993, which was impugned by the petitioners through separate appeals but the same were dismissed by the lower appellate Court again by a consolidated judgment dated 2-3-1994. These petitions were admitted to regular hearing, notices were issued to the respondents who have appeared and contested the petitions.
Since common questions of law and facts are involved, therefore, the arguments were heard together in all the matters and are being disposed of by one judgment.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners in support of the petitions argued that respondents Nos.1 and 2 cannot be treated as landlords because the land underneath the shops belongs to the Provincial Government. It is added that on account of the intervention of the paramount owner being involved the rule of estoppel would not apply in this behalf, reliance is placed on the cases reported as Province of Punjab v. Abdul Ghani PLD 1985 SC 1; Allah Banda v. Niaz Ahmad 1989 SCM R 1188 and Amir Ahmad v. Irshad Ahmed 1993 CLC 1074. It is added that the Courts below failed to appreciate that the question involved was that whether the occupant can be dispossessed when the land underneath does not belong to the Committee. It is added that the petitioners had applied for grant of proprietary rights and that matter is still pending with the Board of Revenue.
The arguments are summed up with the submission that the respondents Nos.1 and 2 were not owners of the land, therefore, have no jurisdiction and authority to issue the impugned notice.
3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents argued that the petitioners and other occupants of the shops etc., were, licensees under his clients and paying Teh Bazari fee. The greed overpowered them and they had started endless litigation. In this behalf reference is made to the following proceedings:---
(1) The petitioners submitted form under Scheme No,VIII and got the property transferred from the Deputy Settlement Commissioner. This order was impugned through revision petition before the Additional Settlement Commissioner who accepted the revision petition vide order, dated 17-5- 1975. The order was assailed by the occupants in this Court through Writ Petition No,429/R of 1975 which was dismissed on 27-5-1975. Thereafter, they filed L.P.A. No,89 of 1975 which was dismissed vide order dated 4-6-1975 placed on the suit file as Exh.D1.
(2) The occupants had also filed suit for declaration and moved application for grant of temporary injunction, which was dismissed by the trial Court on 29-3-1'972 while the appeal against the same was dismissed on 17-5-1972 by the lower appellate Court and ultimately they filed C.R. No,529 of 1972, which was dismissed by this Court vide judgment, dated 27-10-1979. It was held that status of the occupants was that of licensees. Thereafter, the plaint was rejected under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. The order was challenged through an appeal before the lower appellate Court and after its dismissal C.R. 53 of 1990 was filed. The same was dismissed by this Court vide judgment dated 10- 2-1990 on the statement whereby respondent No,1 agreed to give reasonable notice as required under section 122 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979 read with section .3 of the Ordinance XXXVII of 1965 to the plaintiffs-occupahts to vacate the premises in their possession as lessees/licencees; and
(3) Thereafter, the petitioners were served with a notice Exh.P1 which was impugned by them through the suits giving rise to the present revision petitions and others dismissed on 8-3-1994.
' It is argued, in this background, that the petitioners had conceded the status of licensee and they have no locus standi to maintain the suit. It is added that they tried to base their suit on forged and fabricated documents. In this behalf the learned counsel relied on the copy of the Jamabandi Exh.P13, which is falsified by the copies of Jamabandi Exhs.D1 to D15. It is argued that the petitioners had a right of appeal under the Local Government Act as well as Ordinance, 1965, therefore the suit was not competent. It is submitted that the property vests in respondent No,1 who had earlier built Zail Ghar on the same and thereafter it was decided to construct school and Super Market. It is added that the Scheme was duly approved by the Commissioner as well as the Deputy Commissioner. It is added that part of the building had already been constructed while it could not be completed on account of injunction order obtained by the petitioneRs, ' The arguments are summed up with the submission that the notice was acted upon and the structure of the petitioners was demolished but after arming themselves with the injunction order in these civil revisions they again occupied it. The arguments are concluded with the submission that some of the occupants filed Civil Revisions Nos.952/94, 953/94 and 955/94 which were dismissed by this Court in limine vide order dated 8-3-1994 which has not been challenged any further. This way the order has become final.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the relevant provisions of law and' precedents relied upon on behalf of the parties. The admitted position is that the occupants filed C.R. No,529 of 1975 which was dismissed on 27-10-1979 and I they were declared licensees.
5. This is not all. Thereafter, they challenged the rejection of the plaint through C.R. 531 of 1990 and same was disposed of on the statement of the learned counsel for the respondents by my learned brother Gul Zarin Kiani, J., with the following observation:--- "Learned counsel for the respondents states that Municipal Corporation, Sargodha, shall give a reasonable notice as required by section 122 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979 as also a notice provided by section 3 of Ordinance XXXVII of 1965 to the plaintiffs that occupants are to vacate the premises in their possession as lessees/licensees from the respondent No,1. Learned counsel further states that the aforesaid notices could be combined in one notice. In view of the statement of the learned counsel for respondents as to prior service of a reasonable notice, civil revision is not pressed which is, accordingly, disposed of."
' Respondent No,1 accordingly proceeded to serve the occupants including the petitioners with notice dated 14-3-1990 for delivering the possession of the shop structures in his respective possession. They have proceeded to file the suits for declaration to the effect that the notice was without jurisdiction, illegal and ineffective on their rights. The petitioners are estopped by their own conduct to I once again dispute their status because they had not only been paying Teh Bazari fee but also accepted in the second round of litigation that they were licensees. Now they cannot be allowed to take contradictory stand. Moreso, as the earlier findings recorded by this Court in C.Rs, Nos.529/72 and 53/90 have become final. It is precisely on this score that the earlier revision petitions against the same judgment were dismissed by this Court in limine as noted above.
6. The petitioners tried to boost up their claim by producing forged and fabricated copies of Jamabandi wherein they were shown as tenants of the Provincial Government. The same is falsified by the copies of Jamabandi Exhs.D1 to D15. Produced by the Provincial Government for the period 1914 to 1986 wherein clearly the Municipal Committee has been shown in possession. There is merit in the argument of the learned counsel for respondents Nos. 1 and 2 that since the possession is of the Committee, therefore, there is no question of grant of proprietary rights to the petitioners and other occupants. The petitioners are basing their claim on the title of the Provincial Government which has not contested the claim of respondent No,
1. Moreover, the Government in the written statement clearly took up the position that it is neither necessary nor proper party to the dispute. This is not all. The Government has not contested the findings of the Courts below on Issues 1 and 2. The fact that the petitioners instead of assailing the impugned notice through an appeal under the Local Government Act proceeded to file the present suits also cuts at the root of the claim of the petitioners that they are tenants of the Provincial Government.
7. The Courts below have taken all the evidence on record into consideration before dismissing the suits and appeals of the petitioneRs, This way it is concurrent finding of fact recorded by the Courts below and the petitioners have failed to make out a case for interference in revisional jurisdiction.
The High Court can correct jurisdictional errors but reappraisal of the evidence in the hope that it may come to a different conclusion could never be a ground justifying interference with the findings of fact muchless a concurrent finding. I am fortified in my view by the judgment reported as Muhammad Din v. Muhammad Abdullah PLD 1994 SC 291.
8. The upshot of the above discussion is that there in no merit in the revision petitions. The same are dismissed with costs.