1. Through this civil revision the judgment and decree dated 25--9-1996 respectively assailed are passed by learned IIIrd Additional District Judge, Khairpur in Civil Appeal No. 11 of 1991 whereby he maintained the judgment and decree dated 6-1-1991 passed by 1st Senior Civil Judge, Khairpur, who had dismissed the suit filed by the applicants.
2. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that applicants/plaintiffs filed a suit against the respondents/defendants for declaration and permanent injunction praying for a relief as under:--
(1) That it be declared that the orders granting the land by defendant No.4, Nos.3580 and 3581 dated 23-1-1970, to the defendant No.2 the Forest Department is null, void, ineffective, without jurisdiction, and nullity under law which has absolutely no legal sanction behind it and these orders do not affect the rights of all kinds proprietary, Darya Khurdi and Muhag rights, enjoyed by them till today. Further prayer is not necessary as the plaintiffs are in peaceful possession till today.
3. (2)That the permanent injunction be issued to the defendants restraining them not to disturb the possession of the plaintiffs or spoil their crops themselves through their staff or those claiming under them.
(3) That the costs of the suit be paid by the defendants.
4. (4)That any other help the Court deems fit to grant.
5. The case of the applicants/plaintiffs as disclosed in the plaint is that the land is a Katcha land situated in Deh Kanchi taluka and District Khairpur admeasuring about 3243-2 acres. They were cultivating it and were claiming the rights of Darya Khurdi over it. They were in cultivating possession and such Ijazatnamas were in their possession. It is urged that they were in possession of land since their ancestors, therefore. They had heritable right over the property. The suit was filed for the inhabitants of certain villages with a permission to sue in representative capacity. The boundaries of aforesaid land were given by the applicants/plaintiffs. The defendants/respondents raised their claim over the disputed land on 18-8-1989 and giving it status of Forest land. The Assistant Commissioner in this regard passed two orders dated 23-11-1970 by which the land was granted to Forest Department. The said orders were challenged through the suit. The applicats/plaintiffs also claimed Muhag right over the suit-land. The applicants/plaintiffs preferred an appeal against the order passed by Assistant Commissioner before the Deputy Commissioner, Khairpur but the appeal was dismissed being time-barred. Hence the suit was filed. The respondent/defendants filed their written statements wherein they have stated that the land belongs to Forest Department and the alleged Ijazatnamas issued for one year could not establish or confer any proprietary right on the applicants/plaintiffs. The plea was also raised that the said Ijazatnamas were issued to applicants/plaintiffs for another land but the land in suit is different from that land. The respondents/defendants denied that the houses and villages of the applicants/plaintiffs were situated on the disputed land. The Assistant Commissioner was competent to grant land to anybody, therefore, the order passed by Assistant Commissioner is in accordance with the law, which is maintained by the appellate authority. The applicants/plaintiffs were encroachers and even if they were Haris they cannot claim their ownership right over the Forest land. The plea was raised -that the suit was not maintainable and the same was barred by time. Out of pleadings following issues were settled by the trial Court;-- (1)Whether the suit is not maintainable according to law?
6. (2)Whether the suit is barred by law?
7. (3)Whether the plaintiffs are in possession o. The land under, valid Ijazatnamas?
8. (4)Whether the plaintiffs have no right or title over the land?
9. (5)Whether the orders transferring, are illegal and null, void and in-effective?
10. (6)What should the decree be?
11. The parties adduced their evidence in the trial Court. Ultimately the trial Court dismissed the suit of applicants/plaintiffs. The applicants/plaintiffs preferred an appeal against the judgments and decree in the Court of learned IIIrd Additional District Judge, Khaipur, who by impugned judgment and decree maintained the judgment and decree of the trial Court, which is challenged in this revision.
12. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that learned appellate Court has erroneously observed that the suit was time-barred as the order passed by Assistant Commissioner was without lawful authority, therefore, the time would not run against the said order. It is contended that the judgements passed by two Courts below are nullity in the eye of law. The reliance is placed upon the case reported as Hussain Bux v. Settlement Commissioner, Rawalpindi and others (PLD 1970 SC 1) and Syed Nazir Hassan v. Settlement Commissioner, Lyallpur and another PLD 1974 Lahore 434).
13. Mr. Gul Bahar Korai Advocate for respondents argued that there are concurrent findings of the Courts below, which do not suffer from any illegality or irregularity. The said findings given on the facts cannot be disturbed in the revisional jurisdiction. The encroacher cannot claim any right or even notice. The one year Ijazatnamas by the applicants, do not relate to the Forest land but the same were regarding some other unsurveyed Katcha land. He urged that suit was barred by time as the order was passed by the Assistant Commissioner on 23-11-1970 and the suit was filed on 3- 3-1973. The limitation period for challenging the said order was for one year as prescribed by Article-14 of Limitation Act.
14. The perusal of documents reveals that the applicants/plaintiffs were granted lease for one year only but the said lease does not confer any ownership right for the Katcha land. The said Ijazatnamas do not disclose that the same were in respect of the suit-land granted to Forest Departnent. The order passed by the Assistant Commissioner was maintained by the appellate authority viz Deputy Commissioner, Khairpur. The impugned order was passed by Assistant Commissioner on 23-11-1970, which was not challenged by the applicants/plaintiffs by filing suit within a prescribed time of 12 months as provided by Article 14 of the Limitation Act. The applicants/plaintiffs have failed to adduce any evidence to show or prove any proprietary right over the land. The concurrent findings of two Courts below on facts cannot be lightly interfered with. No legal plea has been raised by the learned counsel for the aplicants/plaintiffs. The status of they applicants/plaintiffs being in the possession of the land is only that of encroachers, which cannot be legalized or justified under the law.
15. Consequently the impugned judgments do not suffer from illegalities or infirmities and need no interference.
16. The R.A. No. 104 of 1996 was dismissed in linune by short order dated 16-11-2000. These are the reasons for the same.