' Ahmed Nawaz and three others, respondents herein, filed a suit for seeking declaration to the effect that they were owners in possession of the land in Khasra Nos. 331, 332, 333 and that the petitioners, had no right to construct road through khasra No,331, without prior acquisition, providing alternative land or the compensation.
2. The petitioners resisted the suit, on the ground, that there was no need for acquisition of land and that the owners of the land had offered the same, free of compensation, for the purpose of construction.
3. On consideration of the evidence, led by the two sides, the learned Civil Judge, decreed the suit by his judgment, dated 6-2-1996. The learned Civil Judge, observed, that the evidence on record, proved that no acquisition of land was made in accordance with law, so mutation was sanctioned in favour of Highway Department, the land still stood in the name of the respondents/plaintiffs as owners and that respondents could not be deprived of ownership otherwise than in due course of law and also that the petitioners were not entitled to construct the record.
4. Appeal filed by the petitioners, was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Khushab, on 27-9-1997, who also, observed, that the road could not be constructed through the land of respondents without acquisition or payment of compensation, and that there was no record for any negotiation by Deputy Commissioner with the owners nor any mutation had been attested in favour of Government. He further observed, that the peaceful enjoyment of immovable property was a fundamental right of which the respondents could not be deprived.
5. In this revision, the judgments of the two Courts below are under challenge.
6. The learned Assistant Advocate-General submitted, that the plea of estoppel had not been properly attended by the two Courts below. He further submitted, that the owners, had consented to the construction of the road on their land which they were prepared to surrender free from compensation.
7. On being asked, learned A.A.-G, admitted, that the land in issue, was never acquired under the Land Acquisition Act or any other law and that the petitioners were not in possession of any document showing consent of respondents, to raise construction of road on their land. He also did not deny, that the petitioners could not produce any evidence, to make out a case of estoppel except verbal statement, which was not accepted by the Courts below.
8. Admittedly, a landowner, cannot be deprived of his property, without prior acquisition. It is not the case, that the respondents had sold the property or they had ever executed any document, for relinquishing their title in the land. The evidence on record, indicate and that the respondents had at no stage, agreed or supported the proposed constructions on the contrary, they have been contesting the scheme of the petitioners, to construct the road, over their property, without acquisition. In this view of the matter, the plea of estoppel which was not supported by any evidence, worthy of credence, was rightly repelled by the two Courts below.
9. As noted supra, the petitioners, admitted having not acquired the land of the respondents or given any compensation to them for making use of their property, therefore, the petitioners could not be allowed in law, to forcibly utilize, any part of the land, falling in the ownership of respondents, without lawful acquisition. The view taken by the Courts below, does not suffer from any error of law nor any misreading or non-reading of the evidence could be pointed out.
10. For the reasons above, there is no merit in this revision, which is accordingly dismissed.