2006 PLP 1931 (YLR)

MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, J.

Petitioners/plaintiffs, claiming to be in possession of the land measuring 41 Kanals, 15 Marlas, filed the suit seeking declaration that they are in possession of the said land, the entries in the name of respondent No.1 and Mutation No.785 dated 19-7-1994 qua the questioned land are illegal. It was pleaded that during consolidation proceedings, the Revenue Authorities in collusion with the respondent No.1, deprived the petitioners from the piece of land measuring 2 Kanals, 12 Marlas, and consequent to the said proceedings petitioners have been shownowners of land measuring 23 Kanals, 15 Marlas instead of 26 Kanals, 4 Marlas and the respondent No.1 has been declared to be the owner of 6 Kanals, 3 Marlas, which is beyond his entitlement. It was further stated that respondent No.1 had alienated the disputed land in favour of respondents Nos.2 and 3, vide Mutation No.785 dated 19-7-1994. The suit was contested by the respondents through filing the written statement thereby controverting the allegations levelled in the plaint. Initially eights issues were framed, however, subsequently Issue No.2-A, regarding lack of jurisdiction of the civil Court, was also cast. The learned trial Court, after recording evidence of the parties, decreed petitioner's suit, vide judgment and decree dated 14-10-1998. The respondents challenged the said decree before the appellate forum and the learned Additional District Judge found that Civil Court has no jurisdiction in the matter, decided Issue No.2-A against the petitioners and after coming to the conclusion that in view of findings on Issue No.2-A, findings of the learned trial Court on the other issues have become redundant, proceeded to accept respondent's appeal set aside the decree, favouring the petitioners, vide impugned judgment and decree dated 12-7-2001, hence the present revision petition.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that although suit relates to the consolidation proceedings, yet civil Court being the Courts of ultimate jurisdiction can look into the matter and, therefore, jurisdiction of civil Court is not barred in this case. He has further submitted that as fraud on the part of the Revenue Authorities was alleged, therefore, civil Court being the Court of plenary jurisdiction has the authority to adjudicate upon the suit. Conversely, the learned counsel for the respondents, while referring to section 26 of Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960, has supported the impugned judgment and stated that consolidation proceedings cannot be challenged in the civil Court.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined the available record. Perusal of the contents of the plaint amply manifests that the case of the petitioners from the very inception is that consolidation staff is not competent to reduce petitioner's land and that consolidation authorities have illegally given land of the petitioners to the respondents. It appears appropriate to reproduce certain portions from paras.2 and 3 of the plaint, which read as follows:-- It flows from the above that even according to the own showings of the petitioners the dispute arose from the consolidation proceedings. It is the case of the petitioners, as noted above, that before consolidation proceedings they were owners of land measuring 26 Kanals, 4 Marlas, while respondent No.1 was owner of 3 Kanals, 9 Marlas and after consolidation proceedings their lands has been reduced to 23 Kanals, 15 Marlas, while respondent No.1 was shown as owner of 6 Kanals, 3 Marlas by increasing their share in the land. Allegation of the petitioners is that as a result of consolidation proceedings, respondent No.1 has been shown as owner of the land beyond his entitlement and excess land has been given to him. Had there been no consolidation proceedings, the petitioners would not have been aggrieved. It is, thus, because of consolidation proceedings that the petitioners have been allegedly divested of their land. Having said that, section 26 of Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960 clearly bars the jurisdiction of the civil Court to entertain any suit or even application in respect of any matter, A which Government or Board of Revenue or any officer by this Ordinance is empowered to determine and decide. Undoubtedly, matter of consolidation of land falls exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Revenue Authorities, therefore, petitioners' suit is hit by section 26 of the said Ordinance and the Civil Courts lack jurisdiction in the matter.

4. In the above perspective, I have examined the impugned judgment and find that findings of the learned Additional District Judge as compared to the findings of learned trial Court on Issue No.2-A are in accordance with law and he, after holding that section 26 bars jurisdiction of the Civil Court to adjudicate upon the matter of consolidation proceedings, has rightly held that it would be futile exercise to decide other issues because if Civil Court has no jurisdiction, then the learned trial Court could not have rendered its findings on rest of the issues.

5. Upshot of the above discussion is that the present petition is devoid of merits, hence the same stands dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. F.B./S-83/L Petition dismissed.