SULAIMAN Versus MUHAMMAD DAUD KHAN
ORDER
FAZAL ILAHI KHAN, J: ‑‑This is a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of learned Peshawar High Court, dated 21‑12‑1993 whereby Writ Petition No. 592 of 1993 filed by the petitioner was dismissed.
This petition arises out of ‑suit for produce and ejectment brought by respondents Nos. 1 to 4 against the petitioner and respondents Nos. 5 to 6 for share of produce at half Batai for the crops Kharif 84 to 87 of the suit land in the Revenue Court. This suit was resisted by the petitioner and after doe contest the learned trial Judge decreed the plaintiff/respondents' suit on the basis of Takhmeena Paidawar in the sum of Rs.23,514.12. The prayer for petitioner's ejectment from the land was also allowed. Petitioner preferred an appeal in the Court of respondent No. 8 which was dismissed. The petitioner's revision petition also failed before respondent No. 7. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decrees of the forum of competent jurisdiction petitioner challenged the same in Writ Petition No. 392 of 1993 in the High Court. A learned Division Bench of the Peshawar High Court dismissed the writ petition in limine vide judgment and order dated 21‑12‑1993. Leave to appeal is prayed for against the judgment of the learned High Court.
We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. Petitioner did not deny the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties but basing reliance on the entries in the Jamabandi for the year 1969‑70, wherein the land has been shown on lease at the rate of Rs.60 per Jareeb in favour of the petitioner on behalf of the respondents it was contended that judgment and decree based on Jhar Paidawar prepared on nisfi batai was based on misreading and non‑reading of material evidence. Grievance is also raised that the learned High Court did not advert to this aspect of the case and dismissed the petition in limine. There is no merit in the contention. As already pointed out the present suit was brought for produce of the period Khareef 84 to Rabi 87 and there was no evidence that the landlord's share in the produce of the disputed crop has been paid to the respondents, therefore, for working out the landlord's share in the case the relevant revenue record would be the Jamabandi of the year 1981‑82 in which the land in dispute is recorded in possession. of the petitioners as `Ghair Dakheelkar' and in the relevant column of Legaan the following entries are made:‑‑
This entry is repeated in the subsequent Jamabandi of the year 1986‑87. These entries in the record of rights to which presumption of correctness is attached and which stood unrebutted were rightly relied upon by the Revenue Courts. These have been relevant to the period in dispute. The 3 Courts below of exclusive jurisdiction having correctly held that the petitioner was holding the land on behalf of the respondent on Batai Nisifi in the relevant period was based on proper appraisal of evidence. We, therefore, rind no infirmity in the judgment of learned High Court in dismissing the petition in limine for the reason given there in the order dated 21‑12‑1993. Accordingly, leave to appeal
A.A./S-104/SC Leave refused.