' The dispute in this case relates to a piece of land measuring 260 square feet comprising Khasra No,3352 situated within the limits of the Municipal Committee Behra. Vide PTD dated 14-10-1963, the aforesaid plot was transferred in favour of Syed Sharif Hussain, the predecessor in interest of the petitioners. On 2-1 I -1967, Municipal .Committee Bhera respondent No,1 herein, brought a suit of declaration that the disputed piece of land was a part of public road and since. 1865 was being used as such, it vested in the Municipal Committee who was the owner in possession thereof. In the alternative, it was claimed that the entries of the Municipal Committee, Bhera stood perfected on account of their possession for more than 60 years.
2. The suit was contested on a number of grounds. It was averred that the plot was owned by a non-Muslim evacuee namely Ishar Das and predecessor of the petitioners had purchased it in open auction held in 1961 by the Settlement and Rehabilitation Department. It was further contended that no objection was raised by respondent No,1 at the time of the auction and, therefore, the said respondent was estopped to file the suit. Further that the question whether the property was or was not the evacuee could only be adjudicated upon by the learned Custodian under the provisions of the Pakistan Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1957 (Act No,XII of 1957).
3. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, necessary issues were framed. The learned trial Court, however, referred the matter to the learned Custodian. It was decided by the learned Deputy Custodian vide order, dated 25-5-1970. It was held that the property was not evacuee. The predecessor of the petitioners took an appeal before the learned Custodian. The judgment of the learned Deputy Custodian aforesaid was affirmed vide order, dated 31-1-1971.
4: Thereafter, the suit came up for determination before the learned trial Court and vide judgment dated 31-1-1981 the suit of respondent No,1 was decreed. An appeal taken by the predecessor of the petitioners was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Sargodha vide judgment and decree, dated 20-3-1984.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the PTD in favour of the petitioners/predecessor, was not challenged in any appropriate proceedings and, unless it was set aside, no declaration could be granted in favour of respondent No,l.
6. The learned counsel for respondent No,1 submits that the decision rendered by the learned Deputy Custodian and the learned Custodian clearly determined the status of the property as non- evacuee and, therefore, no exception could be taken to the judgments and decree rendered by the learned two Courts.
7. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. In accordance with an objection taken in the written statement by the predecessor of the petitioners, the matter was referred to the learned Custodian under section 41 of the Act XII of 1957 and a clear finding arrived at that the property was not evacuee. It therefore, did not form part of the compensation pool under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 and, therefore, it was mainly beyond the jurisdiction of the Settlement and Rehabilitation Authorities to deal with it. Thus, the suit of respondent No,1 was rightly decreed. It may, however, be noted that the learned First Appellate Court rightly observed that Municipal Committee, respondent No,1, could not claim adverse possession on the land in dispute. The reasons is obvious. As per the case of respondent No,1, the disputed land was part of public road. It could not, therefore, in exclusive and hostile possession of the said respondent. Therefore, this revision petition is dismissed, the decree granted in favour of respondent No,1 is maintained with the modification, that to the extent of the prayer of respondent No,1 to have become owner of the disputed land by adverse possession, its suit shall be deemed to have been dismissed. No order as to costs.