MEHAR JAN Versus GUL AZAM
On 16‑12‑1978, Gul Azam, respondent herein, instituted a suit in the Court of Civil Judge, Lakki Marwat for the issuance of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, petitioners herein, from interfering with the land measuring 253 Kanal and 3 Marlas, represented by Field Survey Report No. 1923 situated in Village Dara Pezu. The suit was decreed in the first instance on 31‑1‑1982 in favour of the respondents, but on appeal by the petitioners, the case was remanded for de novo trial after framing three additional issues, vide order, dated 8‑5‑1984. However, after the remand, the suit was decreed in favour of the respondents, vide judgment and decree, dated 3‑6‑1989. The judgment and decree was assailed before the learned Additional District Judge, Lakki Marwat, who accepted the appeal and once again remanded the case to the trial` Court with the direction to rewrite the judgment by discussing all issues after hearing other parties. The trial Court instead of following the directions given in the remand order, dated 6‑12‑1989, appointed local Commissioner for ascertainment of certain facts. The order of the local Commissioner was successfully challenged before the revisional Court (the learned Additional District Judge). The petitioner then assailed the order of the revisional Court in this Court through writ petition which was dismissed on 17‑11‑1991. After completion of this round of litigation, when the case was received back by the trial Court, the decree as prayed for was passed in favour of respondents against the petitioner vide judgment and decree, dated 26‑11‑1992. Feeling aggrieved, defendants approached the learned District Judge but with no success as the appeal was dismissed. Still not contented, the petitioner filed this revision petition so as to get the suit of the respondents dismissed.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through record with their assistance.
3. It cannot be disputed that the suit property is "Shamilat Deh" and according to entries of "Shart Wajibul Arz" of 1905‑06, the land is owned by two tribes, namely, Khairukhel and Landaka in equal shares. Admittedly, the respondents belong to Khairukhel tribe as is evident from the pedigree table brought on record during the cross‑examination of P.W.1 Muhammad Gul Patwari, whereas the petitioner neither belongs to Khairukhel nor to Landaka tribe. Muhammad Khan Patwari did support the possession of the respondents over the suit‑land and did not admit the possession of the petitioner. In the entries of Shart Wajibul Arz are kept in view, the Shamilat Deh is owned by Khairukhel and Landaka tribes and the Deputy Commissioner is also empowered to give a piece of land to other persons but he must be resident of the said Village. Sadly, there is no evidence and indeed it is not case of the petitioner that he was given land by the Deputy Commissioner. The learned Courts below are unanimous that the possession of the suit‑land is with the respondents. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioner failed to point out any material to show that petitioners are either Kairukhel or Landaka. Similarly, there is nothing to show that the Deputy Commissioner had given them any piece of land out of this Shanulat Deh.
In the circumstances, the revision is without any substance and is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Q.M.H./M.A.K./218/P Revision dismissed.