MUHAMMAD TAQI Versus MUHAMMAD ALI KHAN
1. RAJA JALAL-UD-DIN, J.--- Initially the plaintiff/respondent Muhammad Ali Khan filed a Civil Suit for declaration and consequential relief to the effect that 2 marlas of land under Khasra No. 678, be returned to him by defendants Nos. 2 and 5.
2. Secondly that the utilized 2 marlas of the acquired land was being encroached upon by Muhammad Taqi petitioner/defendant and his eviction. During the pendency of civil suit the plaintiff/respondent No.1 was restored with the 2 marlas of acquired piece of land by the respondent Nos. 2 and 5 after fulfilling the legal formalities required.
3. In the conclusion the suit was decreed as prayed for.
4. The petitioner/defendant Muhammad Taqi preferred appeal against order of the Civil Judge on 21/5/2010, who vide its finding dated 08/4/2011, dismissed the same as being meritless.
5. Again a revision petition was preferred against the concurrent findings of the two lower courts in the Chief Court Gilgit-Baltistan, who vide its findings dated 18/8/2013, dismissed the same as being without any substance.
6. The petitioner has challenged the findings of the Chief Court Gilgit-Baltistan as being devoid of any merit along with the concurrent findings of the two lower courts.
7. At the outset counsel for the petitioner pleads that the return of the 2 marlas of utilized land to respondent No. 1 by the respondents Nos.2 and 5 is illegal and the same could not be done so. The petitioner is agitated by the letter No. RC-2(1)/2004-1, dated 19/5/2005, by the section officer law. It is pleaded that said Section Officer Law had no locus standi to order the return of the same.
8. In the light of the argument advanced, we have gone through the letter in question along with the exhibits placed on file along with rule 14 of Punjab Land Acquisition Rules 1983.
9. We are convinced that the procedure adopted for the unutilized land and its return have properly been followed and the courts have rightly come to the correct conclusion in their findings. There is no infirmity found.
10. The petitioner/defendant Muhammad Taqi has got no locus standi to contest the matter as he is nobody to prefer a civil suit. He has gone into a wild goose chase for an issue which is no concern of his.
11. The letter No. RC-2(1)/2004-1, dated 19/5/2005 by the section officer law is also closely perused and we found no substance for interference as it does not suffer from any irregularity.
12. In the light of above observations petition is converted into appeal and dismissed.
13. HBT/212/GB Appeal dismissed.