1. ' The circumstances in which this revision application was filed may be succinctly stated as follows:--- ' An open plot of land admeasuring about 968 square yards in Survey No, 316 in Garden East Quarters Karachi which was an evacuee property was allotted to the plaintiff/respondent on 6-12- 1950. He got the lease hold rights in the plot under registered sale-deed, dated 1-6-1960 and subsequently Permanent Transfer Deed (P.T.D.) was issued to him by the Settlement Department.
2. He constructed a residential Bungalow on the said plot in 1951-52. The applicant is the transferee of the adjoining Plot bearing No,315 on which he had already constructed a bungalwo in 1948 and as alleged by the respondent he encroached upon an area measuring 685 square yards of the plot of the respondent. At the time of the encroachment Plot No, 316 vested in the custodian and the plaintiff came to know about the encroachment after he got the plot surveyed. At one stage the applicant applied to the Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioner for transfer of the part of the land encroached upon by him but this application was rejected. The applicant then approached the respondent and requested to allow his gate and boundary wall to remain there for sometime. He undertook not to make any further construction and also to remove the encroachment whenever required by him to do so. In view of such an undertaking the respondent agreed to this request temporarily. After sometime the respondent asked him to remove the encroachment but instead of complying with it he started construction on the land. The respondent then filed Suit No,2275 of 1971 for possession in the Court of learned VI-Civil Judge First Class, Karachi.
3. ' The appellant contested the suit and filed his written statement. He even disputed the title of the respondent to the plot in question and also took the pleas of adverse possession to claim the piece of land encroached upon by him.
4. ' On the pleadings of the parties the learned trial Court framed the following issues:--- "(1) Whether the plaintiff is the lawful owner of the Plot No, 316, Garden East, Karachi?
(2) Whether the land in dispute forms part of Plot No, 316 and was encroached upon by the defendant?
(3) Whether the plaintiff granted a license to the defendant to use the land in dispute as alleged in para. 7 of the plaintiff? If so, has the license been revoked?
(4) Whether the defendant has completed his title by adverse possession of the land in dispute?
(5) Whether the suit is barred by limitation?
(6) Whether the suit is barred under section 8 of the Specific Relief Act?
(7) Whether the suit is under value? If so, what is the proper valuation and its effect?
(8) Whether the defendant is entitled to compensatory cost? If so, how much?
(9) To what relief, if any is the plaintiff entitled?"
5. ' Issues Nos.
6. 7 and 8 were not pressed by the respondents but all the remaining issues were decided in favour of the respondent and his suit was decreed by the learned XXVIII-Civil Judge IInd Class Karachi under his judgment and decree, dated 11-1-1982. Applicants filed appeal against that judgment and decree and his Civil Appeal No, 145/1982 was dismissed by the learned ex-officio Additional District Judge Karachi by his order dated 13-9-1987 which has been challenged in this revision application.
6. ' I heard Mr. Iqbal Qazi learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. M.G. Dastgir learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record.
7. ' Learned counsel for the applicant while referring to the evidences on record submitted that there is no proof of a license. The fact that the applicant had been in exclusive possession of the land in his occupation which is alleged to be subject-matter of license itself proved that there was no license at all, thus, from 1951 to the date of notice i,e, namely 1-11-1997 their is not an overt act to show that the applicant was his licensee. In support of his submissions he relied upon sections 52 and 60 of the Easement Act and Muhammad Hashim v. Zulfiqar Ali Khan, General Manager, West Pakistan, Road Transport Board and others PLD 1963 (W.P.) Lah. 418, Abdullah Bhai and others v.
8. Ahmed Din PLD 1964 SC 106. On the point of limitation he relied upon section 9 of the Limitation Act and cited Aziz Khan v. Ajab Khan and 3 others 1976 SCM R 333; Faiz Muhammad and others v.
9. Mukhtiarkar Kandiaro etc. 1979 SCM R 365. Thus, in other words according to the learned counsel the learned Courts below failed to take into consideration the glaring facts and principles of law and the impugned judgments are liable to be set aside in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction of this Court. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that revisional jurisdiction is discretionary and concurrent findings of Courts cannot be interfered in revision. He also submitted that there is no limitation against trespasser and the plot was transferred to the respondent free from encumbrances. Therefore, the applicant would not be entitled to claim any right in Plot No, 316. In support of his submissions the learned counsel for the respondent cited Haji Abdul Karim v. The Settlement Commissioner and others PLD 1961 (W.P.) Lahore 394, Soobaidar Muhammad Afzal v.
10. Syed Hafeez Ahmed and others PLD 1962 (W.P.) Lahore 45, Allah Diwaya and others v. Bangul and others 1995 M LD 918, Arbab Jamshed Ahmed and another v. Ghazan Khan and others 1995 CLC 695, Kanwal Nain and 3 others v. Fateh Khan and others PLD 1983 SC 53, Malik Faiz Alam v. Malik Muhammad Arshad Khan and others PLD 1986 SC (AJ&K) 65, Haji Muhammad Zaman v. Zafar Ali Khan and others PLD 1986 SC 88, Shad Muhammad v. Khan Poor PLD 1986 SC 91, Haji Muhammad Din v. Malik Muhammad Abdullah PLD 1994 SC 291 and Narayan Bhagwantro Goasvi Balajiwala v.
11. Gopal Vinayak Gosavi and others AIR 1960 SC 100.
12. There are concurrent findigns on all the issues and this Court while exercising revisional jurisdiction is to see whether the Courts below committed illegality or regularity.
13. ' As regards issue No,1 the learned Courts below had held that the Permanent Transfer Deed had conclusively established that the respondent was the transferee of the subject property. This issue was correctly decided in favour of the respondent.
14. ' So far the issue No,2 is concerned it came on the record through the evidence of the parties that the applicant himself tried to acquire the disputed pieces of land by approaching the Rehabilitation Commissioner and his 'requisite vide application dated 24-4-1952 was declined. The application and the order of the Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioner are available on record of this case and it will be relevant to reproduces the observations of the Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioner as under: "I am directed to inform you that the encroachment cannot be legalised. The building may, however, be allowed to stand, for the time being, as purely 'unauthorised construction' provided Mr. Iftikhar Hussain Khan, allottee of Plot No,316 Garden East has no objection to it."
15. The finding on issue No,2 is, thus, unexceptionable.
16. ' The conclusion of both the Courts below on issue No,3 is also based on relevant material and sound reasoning. The evidence on record clearly shows that the applicant wanted to remain in occupation of the disputed piece of land for sometime and sought respondents permission to that effect which was granted on undertaking that he would vacate the same whenever he was asked to do so. It transpired that he did not honour his commitment which culminated in the protracted litigation.
17. ' The plea of adverse possession and limitation raised by the applicant and covered under issues Nos. 4 and 5 are bereft of legal substance. Admittedly the respondent became the owner of the plot in 1960 when the lease deed was executed in his favour and he filed this suit on 8-11-1971 which cannot be said to be beyond time.
18. I do not, therefore, find any scope to interfere with the decisions of the learned Courts below. This revision is without merit and the case law cited by the learned counsel for the applicant is not attracted to the facts and circumstances of the instant case. Accordingly it is dismissed with cost.
19. The appellant is directed to remove the encroachment and hand over possession of the land in question which is in his unlawful occupation to the respondent within thirty (30) days.