GOVERNMENT OF BALOCHISTAN through Secretary Revenue, Board of Revenue, Balochistan, Quetta and another Versus ABDUL RASHID LANGOVE

ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, J .---This appeal with leave of this Court is directed against the judgment dated 5-7-1999 of the High Court of Balochistan, Quetta, whereby Civil Revision No.352 of 1998 filed by appellants was dismissed.

2. Briefly, stated the facts of the case are that disputed landed property was in the name of Khan of Kalat but after promulgation of Livid Reforms Regulation, 1972 it was assumed by the Provincial Government to be its owner and the Deputy Commissioner Kalat was recorded as its occupant. Subsequent thereto respondent filed a suit in the Court of Qazi to the effect that the land i.e. subject-matter of the proceedings is in his occupation as tenant to the extent of 5/6th share from the time of his ancestors whereas 1/6th share was owned by Khan of Kalat, therefore, they may be recorded as Maroosi Bazgars.

3. The suit was contested by the appellants but ultimately it was decided against them vide order dated 31st March, 1998 by Qazi Kalat and the decree of the trial Court was maintained in appeal by Majlis-e-Shoora vide judgment/decree dated 31st July, 1998. Revision filed against both these orders has also been dismissed by the High Court mainly on two grounds firstly that the revision was barred by time and that section 5 of the Limitation Act was not applicable, therefore, the delay in filing the revision could not be condoned. Secondly, it was observed that there were concurrent findings of facts against the appellants recorded by the trial and appellate Courts therefore, no interference was called for.

4. Leave to appeal was granted by this Court on 23rd June, 2000 on the following points in the interest of justice:--

(i) that in the instant case learned High Court has overlooked to attend an important question namely jurisdiction of the Civil Courts is barred under section 26 of the Regulation, according to which no provision of' the regulation or of any rules or orders made hereunder shall be called in question in any Court, including the High Court and the Supreme Court, or before any authority other than an authority appointed under this regulation, and no such Court or authority shall have jurisdiction in respect of any matter which the commission is empowered to determine;

(ii) that learned Qazi Kalat as well as Majlis-e-Shoora failed to attend question i.e. as to whether the suit is barred by time;

(iii) on merits as well there was no sufficient evidence available on record to grant relief to the respondent as was prayed for the plaint.

5. We have heard Mr. Mehmood Raza, learned Additional Advocate-General Balochistan and Syed Rafaqat Hussain Shah learned Advocate Supreme Court for respondent and have gone through the record and the proceedings of the case in minute particulars.

6. It is pertinent to mention here that respondent Abdul Rashid made the following prayer in the suit:-

7. Learned counsel for appellants mainly contended that the land in dispute was recorded during settlement in the name of Khan of Kalat as owner as well as in possession subsequently in MLR 115 of 1972 and Land Reforms Act-II of 1979, the same was entered in the name of Government of Balochistan and the D.C. Kalat was shown as in possession of he same vide Mutation No.1. He further contended that when the land in dispute was incorporated in the name of Khan of Kalat, the name of respondent and his predecessor in interest had not been mentioned as tenants in the Settlement Record nor there was any share of respondent or his predecessor in interest in the land in dispute, therefore, the judgments/decrees impugned are not sustainable in the eye of law. He strenuously argued that both the Courts below have failed to appreciate documentary evidence produced by appellant. He further argued that settlement operation was carried out in the year 1972 and the appellant filed the suit before the trial Court after 25 years, therefore, suit was barred by time. He lastly contended that no documentary evidence was produced before the trial Court about granting of right of tenancy by late Khan of Kalat to respondent or his predecessor in interest i.e. grandfather and father and uncles.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent controverted the above contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant and argued that the respondent is the tenant since his forefathers as such he is entitled to the relief and his name be entered in the record of right as tenant. He contended that learned Additional District Judge passed the judgment on 31-7-1998 whereas revision petition was filed on 3-12-1998 before the learned High Court after lapse of above four months, therefore, it was barred by time.

9. There being the concurrent findings of three Courts below as such we do not find any justification to interfere with the same. The suit was filed by respondent claiming that right of tenancy from his forefathers which may be recognized and his name be entered in the column of tenancy to the extent of 5/6th share as he was in possession as tenant since his forefathers. He had also not challenged the wires of Regulation of MLR 115 of 1972. Moreover, the revision before the learned High Court was also barred by time, which was also a factor on which the same was dismissed as provision of section 5 of the Act is not available while filing revision petition under MLR 115 of 1972.

10. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in the appeal the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.

M.H./G-34/SC Appeal dismissed.