' SH. IJAZ NISAR, J.---Leave is sought against the judgment, dated 19-5-1998; passed by the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, Bahawalpur, in Civil Revision No.408 of 1995.
2. The facts, in brief, are that one Abdul Ghafoor son of Sadar Din, resident of Bahawalpur, got a written permission, dated 21-11-1948 from Mr., A. J. Dring, Sardar-i-Azam (Prime Minister)
Bahawalpur State, to purchase the land belonging to Ala-Hazrat Sarkar Ali (Nawab of Bahawalpur) in Chak No.4/D.N.B, Tehsil Bahawalpur. The said Abdul Ghafoor purchased an area of 3074 Kanals from the State land, for which Mutation No.11 dated 31-12-1953 was sanctioned. The factum of the sale was incorporated in the Jamabandis for the year 1954-55, 1958-59 and 196263. He obtained the possession of the land and made sale of it to respondents Nos.1 to 10 as well as Safdar Ali, pro forma respondent, for consideration of Rs.2,78,000. This sale was evidenced through Mutation No.104 dated 31-3-1964. The aforesaid vendees-respondents obtained possession of the disputed property, according to their specific shares. The fact about this sale was entered in the Jamabandi for the year 1966-67. The respondents made some portion of the disputed property as culturable.
Meanwhile settlement proceedings started in Bahawalpur and one Maulvi Muhammad Yaqoob, Tehisldar, Settlement, is said to have contacted the respondents-vendees with the offer to get the property improved in case 1/4th of the same was delivered to him under his ownership. In case of the failure of the respondents-vendees to accept the above offer the Tehsildar threatened them to deprive them of the property. On their failure to accede to his demand he allegedly prepared a wrong report against the vendees on the basis of which the Settlement Officer is said to have got a criminal case registered with Anti-Corruption Establishment, Multan, in the year 1991; against the vendees, which was not followed up and the proceedings ended.
3. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid proceedings of the Settlement Officer, respondents Nos.1 to 10 filed a suit for declaration on 15-2-1992, which was decreed by the learned trial Court on 9-4-1994.
Against the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed an appeal, which was dismissed by the learned District Judge on 6-4 -1995.
4. Still not feeling satisfied, the petitioner tiled C.R. No.408-D of 1995 in the High Court which, too, was dismissed on 19-5-1998. Hence, this petition.
5. It is, inter alia, contended by Ch. Muhammad Bashir, Assistant Advocate-General, Punjab, that the judgment of the High Court is not in conformity with law and the Courts have misappreciated the evidence and the learned High Court ignored glaring defect on the parts of the Courts below to seek technical opinion of the handwriting expert, or to have referred the matter to the Finger Prints Bureau, Government of the Punjab, for determination of the alleged forgery and preparation of bogus documents.
6. The respondents had won the case from all the fora on the basis of overwhelming documentary evidence produced by them in support of their claim, on the failure of the petitioner to establish any fraud or forgery on the part of the respondents. They were so evasive and careless that they failed to mention the particulars of fraud and forgery even in the written statement filed in reply to the suit instituted by the respondents. The respondents had relied on the documents which were in the official custody lying in the record room by producing their certified copies and the learned High Court had upheld the judgment and decrees of the Courts below by observing that.
"Before the parting with this judgment I am tempted to express that the impugned judgment and decree was passed by the trial Court on 9-4-1994 while the appeal preferred by the petitioner- defendant No.1 was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 6-4-1995. In the presence of the aforesaid concurrent findings of the Courts of competent jurisdiction invested with the powers to declare about the title of the parties on the suit property the General Assistant (Revenue), Bahawalpur passed the order dated 26-11-1995 for the correction of Mutation No.11 attested on 31-12-1953 and Mutation No.104 sanctioned on 31-3-1964. The Revenue Officer made the correction on 28-11-1995. In the presence of the judgment and decrees of the learned lower Courts it was simply a transgression of powers and authority on the part of the General Assistant (Revenue), Bahawalpur. His aforesaid order date 26-11-1995 and on its basis the order dated 28-11- 1995 incorporated on the aforesaid mutations by the Revenue Officer are held to be illegal, without jurisdiction, void and inoperative. The same, accordingly, are set aside with an advice to the District Collector, Bahawalpur (petitioner-defendant No.1) that with respect to the title of respondents Nos.1 to 10-plaintiffs the findings of the Civil Court and the Additional District Judge have to prevail. The projection of the State power in the aforesaid manner cannot be approved. Consequently the aforesaid orders dated 26-11-1995 and 28-11-1995 are set aside and the District Collector, Bahawalpur (petitioner) is directed to remove the aforesaid respective entries from Mutation No.11 sanctioned on 31-12-1953 and Mutation No.104 attested on 31-3-1964 which, as held above, are based on facts and operative which were incorporated in the Jamabandi for the relevant years.
Any of the entries made in the register of mutations and the register of Jamabandi contrary to the judgments of the Civil Courts have no force and are ineffective."
7. In view of the concurrent finding of fact based on overwhelming material, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment, and in consequence dismiss the petition .