Brief facts of the instant Civil Revision are that the petitioner filed suit for declaration that he is owner in possession of 3 Kanals and 10 Marlas in Khata No.204/209, Khatooni No.408, Khasra Nos.195-196 and that the levy of Tawaan by the defendants Provincial or Federal Government is illegal and the orders dated 20-6-1993 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner Revenue, dated 2-12-1993 passed by the Board of Revenue, dated 26-11-1995 and 20-3-1995 in respect of levy of Tawaan are illegal and not effective upon the plaintiff. This suit was contested by the defendants Nos. 1 and 3 that property in dispute belongs to Central Government and the plaintiff/respondent was an illegal occupant and therefore, levy of Tawaan was justified and the plaintiff has lost his case before all the Revenue Courts. In the Jamabandi for the year 1926-27 in cultivation column the property is in possession of evacuee occupant This property belongs to Central Government and the Provincial Government. On the pleadings of parties issues were framed. The plaintiff also moved an application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. Seeking temporary injunctions. The interim injunctions were refused by the learned trial Court vide order dated 15-3-1997. On appeal the order was maintained and the appeal was dismissed vide judgment dated 24-10-1997 passed by the learned District Judge, Mianwali.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that property in dispute is joint ownership "Shamlaat Deh", without its partition no owner can claim any specific area; the petitioner who is joint owner in Shamlaat Deh has every right to use .His ownership right upon the land in dispute, therefore, the judgments of the learned Courts below are in conflict with the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court "Mehr Dad v. Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Lahore Division, Lahore and another"
(PLD 1974 SC 193) the petitioner being a tenant is entitled to the grant of proprietary rights under the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975.
3. Learned A.A.-G. Submitted that petitioner has been agitating the remedy with the Revenue hierarchy and has failed up to the Board of Revenue, therefore, the learned Courts below have rightly refused the injunctions.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.A.-G. And perused the record. In order to obtain an injunction the plaintiff has to show a prima facie arguable' case and balance of convenience and inconvenience to him resulting in irreparable loss. Property in dispute is undoubtedly Shamlaat Deh and the ownership vests with the Central Government, now transferred to the Provincial Government. Petitioner's name is recorded as "Tenant under Federal Government". He is not having ownership possessory rights in his independent capacity, therefore, the Tawaan for illegal cultivation was levied upon him, as he is recorded as a tenant under the Federal Government in the record of rights produced by him he cannot take benefit of the settled law that without partition of Shamlaat Deh the ownership of the specific numbers cannot be earmarked. The property is evacuee land and the petitioner has not been able to prove his prima facie arguable case, therefore, no interference is made in the judgments passed by the learned Courts below. This Civil revision is dismissed on this score.