MUHAMMAD OZAIR Versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB Shah Abdul Rashid and Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record

ORDER

SALEEM AKHTAR, J.‑‑‑ This order will dispose of the above petitions as common questions of law and fact are involved therein.

2. The petitioners filed a suit for declaration praying that they are owners in possession of the disputed land situated in the revenue estate of Murree and the respondents have no right over the said land. The land involved was Khasra No.392. It was further prayed that the entries in the Revenue Record showing Provincial Government as the owner of the suit land are incorrect and are liable to be corrected. The petitioners also prayed for injunction restraining the respondents from dispossessing them. Respondents Nos.1 and 2 denied their claim and pleaded that Khasra No.392 vests absolutely in the Provincial Government and the petitioners have encroached upon it. The learned trial Judge dismissed the suit to the extent of declaration for ownership, but as regards possession, injunction was granted that the petitioners should not be disturbed while implementing development scheme without compensating them for their constructions and trees planted by them. Both the parties filed appeals against this judgment. The Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi accepted the appeals of the Provincial Government and dismissed the appeals filed by the petitioners. The petitioners challenged this judgment in revision application before the High Court which was dismissed in limine.

3. Mr. Bashir Ahmad Ansari, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the Courts below have completely ignored the documentary evidence produced on record. The learned counsel further contended that entries in the Record‑of‑Rights raise rebuttable presumption of title and as clear, cogent and convincing evidence was produced by the petitioners which rebutted the presumption the learned Courts below by completely ignoring the authentic evidence on record have caused injustice and committed irregularity of material nature. The learned counsel referred to the report dated 12‑11‑ 1982 at page 154 of the paper book which traces the history of the entire area right from 1860 to show that the predecessors‑in‑interest of the petitioners have remained in exclusive and peaceful possession of various parcels of land in their own right as owners of Shamilat Deh of village Mosiari without paying anything to anyone. The learned counsel also referred to the document and fact admitted by the Government officials that Rs.50 has been paid to the village land owners for over a century which is still paid, and is distributed among them. While referring to the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2, 4 and 5 and Exhs.P1 and P4 the learned counsel contended that the presumption attached to the entries in, the Revenue Records regarding ownership of the Provincial Government was fully rebutted. The learned counsel further contended that in the face of the evidence produced by the petitioners it was incumbent upon the Provincial Government to have produced documentary evidence to show in what circumstances and in what manner entries in its favour were made in the Revenue Record.

4. To inter alia consider all these questions, we grant leave.

AA./M‑1764/S Leave granted.