Director General LDA Versus Mir Muhammad Abid
Order
Raheel Kamran, J.--- The petitioner has assailed the judgment and decree dated 06.04.2018 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Lahore, whereby the Suit for declaration along with permanent injunction filed by the respondent was decreed as well as the judgment and decree dated 17.09.2018 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the aforesaid judgment and decree was dismissed.
2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned judgments and decrees are against law and facts and suffer from mis-reading and non-reading of the record as well as jurisdictional defects. He maintains that the respondent obtained adjustment of the suit plots through fraud, therefore, he is not entitled to claim ownership. It is further stated that under the Allocation and Adjustment Letters as well as the governing framework of the LDA Act, the department is legally empowered to cancel ownership obtained illegally. He adds that the courts below failed to properly appreciate the evidence and exercised jurisdiction not vested in them, hence, the impugned judgments and decrees are liable to be set aside and the suit of the respondent dismissed.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the available record.
4. Perusal of the record reveals that the controversy revolved around plots Nos.23, 23-A and 23-B, Block-P, Johar Town, Lahore, which were purchased by the respondent for valuable consideration after due verification and completion of all codal formalities by the petitioner-authority. The record further. demonstrates that possession was delivered to the respondent and the plots were duly transferred in his name by the competent authority.
5. The learned Appellate Court, after evaluating the evidence categorically observed that the petitioner authority had themselves verified the title of the vendor, issued NOC, transferred the plots in favour of the respondent and sanctioned the site plan. It was further noted that although allegations of fraudulent adjustment were raised by the petitioner, no departmental or legal proceedings were initiated against any delinquent officials nor was any specific material produced to establish the alleged fraud.
6. With respect to interference in concurrent findings of the courts below, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in a case reported as Administrator, Thal Development through EACO Bhakkar and others v. Ali Muhammad (2012 SCMR 730) has held as under:-
"Concurrent findings of the trial court and appellate court in favour of appellants were based on proper appreciation of evidence therefore, the same were not open to interference by the revisional court in exercise of its jurisdiction under section 115, C.P.C. which is primarily meant for correction of jurisdictional defect/error material illegalities /irregularities, resulting in miscarriage of justice to a party."
7. In the present case, no such defects have been pointed out by the learned counsel for petitioner in order to seek interference by this Court. The courts below have thoroughly examined the entire evidence of the parties and thereafter reached at just conclusion. Neither any misreading or non-reading of evidence on record nor any infirmity, legal or factual has been pointed out in the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the courts below.
8. Sequel of the above discussion is that the instant civil revision, being devoid of any substance, is hereby dismissed in limine .
UN/D-5/L Revision dismissed.