SHAIKH ABDUR RAZZAQ, J.--- Briefly stated the facts are that the plaintiff/petitioner Alaf Din claims himself to be a Jammu and Kashmir refugee and asserts that land measuring 26 kanals, 14 marlas described in para No. 2 of the plaint was allotted to him in 1954, that the said allotment was for the maintenance of persons namely the plaintiff/petitioner, Saif Ali and Habib Ali sons of Bhalli, that Saif Ali, was named as head of family and on his death Habib Ali succeeded who also died on 17.11.1977 and now he is the only surviving beneficiary and holder of the allotted land, that Government offered the disputed land to the temporary allottees so he (plaintiff/petitioner) deposited Rs.1340/- on 5.11.1979 with the Assistant Commissioner, Gujranwala/defendant/respondent.No. 1 who confirmed proprietary rights,that on 10.12.1979Tehsildar, Gujranwala/defendant/respondent No. 2 ordered that the suit land be mutated in the name of said Habib Ali and finally Mutation No. 402, dated 29.1.1980 was sanctioned in his (Habib Ali) favour, that the order of Assistant Commissioner (DSC Land) dated 5.11.1979 and Mutation NO. 402, dated 19.1.1980 is void, illegal, without jurisdiction and ma/a fide as mutation could not be sanctioned in the name of deceased's head of family, that he moved several applications to the defendants/respondents but no action, whatsoever was taken, hence he filed the instant suit for declaration that he (plaintiff/petitioner) is the only beneficiary and is entitled to land measuring 26 kanals, 14 marlas and orders dated 5.11.1979, 10.12.1979 and 29.1.1980 are illegal, void and have no effects on his rights. He further prayed that during the pendency of the suit the defendants/respondents be permanently restrained from allotting the suit land to any other person:
2. The suit was resisted by the defendant/respondent No. 4 Mst. Begum Bibi who raised three preliminary objections and asserted that she being daughter of Saif Ali is only entitled to the allotment of land and the..plaintiff/petitioner has no locus standi to file the suit.
3. Divergent pleadings of the parties gave; rise to the following issues:- (11 Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi? OPD.
(2) Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD.
(3) Whether the Civil Court has no jurisdiction? OPD
(4) Whether the plaintiff is the sole person entitled for thew disputed land and the disputed orders are in effective upon the rights? OPP.
(5) Relief.
5. in support of his stand the plaintiff/petitioner examined PW.1 Zia-ud-Din, PW.2 Peer Muhammad, PW.3 Abdul Rehman and recorded his own statement as PW.4. He also produced documents Ex.P1 to P10. In rebuttal the defendant/respondent No. 4 Mst. Begum Bibi recorded her own statement as DW.1 and examined Jamal Hussain DW.2. She also produced documents Ex.D1 to D5 and then closed her evidence.
6. After going through the evidence produced by the parties the learned Senior Civil Judge, Gujranwala dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 12.11.1987. The plaintiff/petitioner felt aggrieved of the said judgment and challenged the same which came-up for hearing before Mr. Fakhar Hayat, the then Additional District Judge, Gujranwala who accepted the same and remanded the suit vide judgment dated 13.3.1989. After the remand of the suit it ?as again dismissed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Gujranwala vide judgment and decree dated 7.7.1990.
The plaintiff/petitioner again felt aggrieved of the said judgment and decree and filed an appeal which has again been dismissed by the learned Additional-District Judge, Gujranwala vide judgment and decree dated 13.2.1991. Hence the instant civil revision.
7. Arguments have been heard and record perused.
8. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the plaintiff/petitioner that initially land has been allotted for three persons of a family headed by Saif Ali, that the said three persons included Saif Ali, Habib Ali and Alaf Din (plaintiff/petitioner), that the plaintiff/petitioner though was not brother of Saif Ali and Habib Ali but he had been adopted as a son by Saif Ali and as such was one of the three members of h is family, that Saif Ali was allotted and measuring 26 kanals, 14 merles (suit land) on 21.12.1954 as maintenance allowance, that Habib Ali had been residing with Saif Ali and so also the plaintiff/petitioner, that Saif Ali died in 1961 and was survived by his other brother Habib Ali who also died on 17.11.1977, that after the death of Saif Ali and Habib Ali it is the plaintiff/petitioner who has been coming in possession of the suit land, that it is he who moved an application for allotment of the land and deposited the sale price in the name of Habib Ali and as such the proprietary rights; were conferred on 10.9.1979, that mutation No. 402 was sanctioned in the. name of Habib Ali on 29.1.1980, that as he has deposited the amount in question for acquiring proprietary rights and was the only surviving member of the family who had been allotted the suit land so he was entitled to proprietary rights of the suit land, that as his said request was not accepted so he filed the instant suit, that initially the suit was filed against the defendants/respondents Nos. 1 to 3 and later on Mst.
Begum Bibi was impleaded as defendant/respondent No. 4 on the basis of an application moved by her on 4.1.1980, that Mst. Begum Bibi was not daughter of Saif Ali as such was not entitled to claim ownership in the suit land, that Mst. Begum Bibi was married with one Sain alias Nizam Din and was not daughter out of Saif Ali but was daughter of Shah Wali ex-husband of Mst. Bano who was married with Saif Ali before partition and had been murdered prior to partition. He thus submitted that Mst. Begum Bibi in no way is entitled to claim the suit land. He further contended that even if it is assumed that the plaintiff is not the member of the family of Saif Ali yet he being nearer in degree. to Saif Ali shall exclude Mst. Begum Bibi being remoter in degree and even on this score is entitled to the suit land. He thus submitted that both the Courts below have not returned the findings in accordance with law.
9. Conversely the impugned judgment of the Courts below have been supported by the learned counsel for the defendant/respondent No. 4. To supplement his contentions he referred to the statement of PW.3 Abdul Rehman who admitted that at the time of partition Saif Ali, Habib Ali and Mst. Begum Bibi came to Pakistan and had been obtaining '
Rashan', that it has also been admitted by PW.2 Peer Muhammad that Saif Ali, Habib Ali and Mst.
Begum Bibi have been obtaining ' Rashan', that Saif Ali died earlier to Habib Ali, as such Mst. Begum Bibi being the third member of the family is entitled to the suit land, that there is no evidence on record to show if Alaf Din (plaintiff/petitioner) ever accompanied Habib All and Saif All at the time of partition, that even in Nikahnama Ex.D1 Mst. Begum Bibi has been shown to be daughter of Saif Ali, that as suit land had been allotted for subsistence purposes so it is not inheritable and placed reliance upon Feroze Bibi vs. Settlement Commissioner (Land) and another (NLR 1980 U.C. 128), that land allotted for maintenance can be retained by any other eligible person after death of an allottee who was a permit holder and heir of deceased allottee has no vested right to such property and placed reliance upon Raisham Bibi v. Umar Din (1986 CLC 2354), that the plaintiff/petitioner being not entitled to allotment has no locus standi to file the suit and placed reliance upon Shadi Khan v.
Additional Commissicner (Consolidation) and others (1989 SCM R 1942). He further contended that both the Courts below have returned concurrent findings which are not revisable except in cases where decision is based on no evidence or inadmissible evidence or is so perverse that grave injustice would result therefrom and placed reliance upon Haji Muhammad Zaman v. Zafar Ali Khan and others (PLD 1986 S.C. 88) and Abdul Hameed v. Ghulam Muhammad and others (1987 .SCMR 1005). He thus submitted that there is no force in this revision and the same be dismissed.
10. The only point which requires determination is, if the plaintiff/petitioner is entitled to claim the suit land being beneficiary of a member of the family who was allotted this land. According to the plaintiff/petitioner he is one of the three members family headed by Saif Ali who was allotted this land in 1954. His stand is that after the death of Saif Ali and Habib Ali he being the third member of the family is entitled to claim the suit land. His further contention is that Mst. Begum Bibi _defendant/respondent No. 4 is not daughter of Saif Ali and as such is not entitled to claim the suit land.
11. The evidence discussed above clearly reveals that it has been admitted by PW.2 Peer Muhammad and PW.3 Abdul Rehman, that Mst. Begum Bibi accompanied Saif Ali and Habib Ali at the time of partition and all of them have been getting Rashan' from the concerned department.
There is no evidence on record to prove if the plaintiff/petitioner accompanied Saif Ali and Habib Ali at the time of partition. Mst. Begum Bibi has also been shown to be daughter of Saif Ali as per Nikahnama Ex.DI. The land in question being of the nature of temporary allotment is not heritable as held in the authorities referred above. Thus by no stretch of imagination the plaintiff/petitioner can claim himself to be 'a beneficiary of the original allottees of this land as he has never been a member of the said family beaded by Saif Ali who was allotted the suit land. in 1954. The land has rightly been allotted in the name of Habib Ali who survived Saif Ali and has finally been mutated in his name. The plaintiff/petitioner having no concern with the suit land has rightly been non-suited by the Courts below. There is no force in this . civil revision and the same is hereby dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.