PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Collector and others vs AHMAD
This civil petition for leave to appeal challenged an order of the Lahore High Court which dismissed a civil revision petition concerning a dispute over land ownership and the ownership of 75 trees situated thereon. The respondent had originally filed a suit for declaration and injunction, which was initially dismissed by the trial court but subsequently decreed in the respondent's favor by the appellate court. The petitioner contended that the decree was unsustainable because the land and the trees had not been properly demarcated. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, noting that all three lower courts had reached concurrent findings of fact regarding the respondent's ownership of the disputed land and the trees. The Court held that mere allegations by the petitioner that the Forest Department had planted the trees were insufficient to establish title over the land or the trees, especially when the respondent denied such claims. Finding no merit in the contention, the Supreme Court declined leave to appeal, upholding the concurrent findings of fact regarding ownership.
- Does the mere allegation that trees were planted by the Forest Department confer title over the land or the trees themselves?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding land ownership made by lower courts?
1. ' HAMID ALI MIRZA, J.---This civil petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order, dated 7-7- 1999 passed in Civil Revision No,237 of 1986 by learned Judge in Chambers of Lahore High Court whereby said revision was dismissed.
2. ' Brief facts of the case are that respondent/plaintiff filed suit for declaration and injunction restraining the petitioner/defendant from claiming the ownership of land or 75 trees on the said property in his ownership and possession which suit was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge 1st Class, Mianwali as per judgment and decree, dated 6-11-1984. The respondent/plaintiff preferred an Appeal No,34 of 1985 which was allowed as per judgment and decree, dated 29-9-1985 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Mianwali. The petitioner/defendant preferred Civil Revision No,237 of 1986 before the Lahore High Court which was dismissed as per impugned order.
3. ' We have heard learned counsel for petitioner and perused the record.
4. ' The only contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the land bearing 75 trees having not been demarcated, the decree could not have been passed by the learned Appellate Court and maintained by learned Judge in Chambers, therefore, both judgments/decrees were liable to be set aside. We do not find substance and merit in the said contention.
5. All the three Courts had given concurrent finding of fact that the respondent was the owner of the land in dispute over which 75 trees existed. Nothing has brought on record by the petitioner to show that land in dispute was owned by the petitioner/defendant. Mere allegation that the trees were planted by Forest Department would not by itself confer any title over the land in dispute in favour of the petitioner, so also in respect of 75 trees over it when the said fact that 75 trees were planted by the petitioner was denied by the respondent/plaintiff. There is concurrent finding of fact by all the Courts with regard to the ownership of land in dispute, therefore, no interference is called for by this Court.
6. ' In view of above discussion this petition has no merit consequently leave to appeal is declined and petition is dismissed.