1986 PLP 2854 (CLC)

This revision petition is directed against the judgment and decree of learned first Additional District Judge, Jacobabad, dated 27‑10‑1984 in Civil Appeal No. 11 of 1984 dismissing the appeal of the petitioner against the judgment and decree, dated 17‑3‑1984 of the Senior Civil Judge, Kandhkot in First Class Suit No. 26 of 1983 dismissing the suit of the plaintiff /petitioner. The brief facts leading to this petition are that the petitioner claims to be a sitting tenant of the agricultural land bearing Survey Nos . 259, 262, 272 and 275 situated in Deh Mitho Thararo, Taluka Thul, District Jacobabad. The petitioner applied for the grant of said land to him as a sitting tenant but instead respondent No. 5 in open Katchery granted land to respondent No.

6. He preferred appeal before respondent No. 3, a revision petition before the respondent No.2 but the same were dismissed. He, therefore, filed suit in the civil Court for declaration that the order of grant of land to respondent No. 6 was illegal and ultra vires and that the applicant was entitled to grant of land and for injunction. The suit and appeal were dismissed as pointed above. Pre‑admission notice was issued to the other side and counsel of both the parties were heard. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the suit was dismissed mainly on the ground that he had not produced the original documents though he had produced the photostat copies of the same and that he was neither asked by the trial Court nor was given opportunity to produce the original documents. It may be pointed that respondents remained ex parte before the trial Court as well as before the appellate Court and as such the burden was entirely upon the applicant to prove his case and under Order XIII, Rule 1, C . P. C . it was obligatory upon the applicant to produce all the documentary evidence A that he wanted to rely upon. Therefore, he cannot at this stage contend, that he was not given opportunity to produce the documents. Even in the memo. of revision petition, the applicant has not alleged that he was not given opportunity by the trial Court to produce the original documents. The claim of the applicant for the grant of land is based on his contention that he was sitting tenant of the land. It is admitted fact that he does not hold any Ijazatnama from the Government for cultivating this land. The land was granted under the conditions issued under subsection (2) of section 10 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 by which the Government of Sind granted State land for agricultural purposes to the Haris, small Khatedars and Mohagdars. Section 10(4) of the said Act provides that "no person shall be deemed to be a tenant or to have any right, or title in the land allotted to him until such a written order has been passed and he has taken possession of the land with the permission of the Collector. Admittedly the applicant does not possess any such permission or written order. Therefore, he cannot be deemed to be tenant within the meaning of the said Act. The learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon condition No. 6(1) of the above‑mentioned conditions of grant of land which provides: "(1) The Deputy Colonization Officer, Assistant Revenue Officer or any Gazetted Officer authorised in this behalf by the Colonization Officer, Revenue Officer or Deputy Commissioner or the Assistant Commissioner of the Sub‑Division shall after inspecting the original revenue record personally and making such enquiries, as he may deem necessary decide the eligibility of the applicant for the grant applied for." The only evidence with regard to tenancy of the suit land produced by the applicant in appeal before the Revenue authorities was the certificate issued by Assistant Commissioner, Kandhkot, dated 20‑1‑1980 who issued requisite certificate to the applicant to the effect that he was Hari of the suit land. The land is admittedly in Thul Taluka. It is contended by the learned counsel for the respondent, that this certificate is issued by Assistant Commissioner Kandhkot when land is situated in Taluka Thul. However, this certificate was considered by the learned Additional Commissioner in his order and the relevant portion of the order reads as under:‑‑ "I have heard the Advocates for both the parties. Perused the record, gone through the papers produced by the parties during the course of arguments. The appellant (the present applicant) has failed to produce extract of Khasragirdavri to show that he is Hari of the Deh. The appellant did not contest in the Katchery." The revision petition filed by applicant was dismissed by the learned Member, Board of Revenue respondent No.

2. The relevant portion of the order reads as under:‑‑ "The counsel for the petitioner arguing the matter could not produce any positive proof in support of his contentions discussed in the revision petition. I accordingly maintain the order of Additional Commissioner, Sukkur, which appears to be appropriate. Besides petition was not even present in the Katchery of the disputed land and as such, revision petition, being without any force is rejected." It is not argued that the Revenue authorities viz. Additional Commissioner or the learned Member, Board of Revenue had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned orders nor is it argued that their orders are not based on the evidence. The certificate relied upon by the applicant was considered and apparently not believed by the Revenue Authorities. The mere fact that they disbelieved the certificate issued by the Assistant Commissioner Kandhkot produced by the applicant does not in any way show that they acted without jurisdiction. The learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon P L D 1960 Kar. 908 wherein it is held: "Civil Courts cannot sit in judgment over the decisions of the Revenue Officers if they have acted in exercise of their jurisdiction. There is a sharp, if sometimes fine, distinction between jurisdiction and exercise of jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is the authority to hear and decide a question. It is sometimes exceeded in its exercise but so long a question is decided 'within the limits of the jurisdiction, it is immaterial, from jurisdictional point of view, whether the decision is right or wrong. Unless jurisdiction is conferred by a provision of law the civil Courts can check the errors of usurpation of power made by Revenue Courts or Officers, but not the errors of their judgment." The learned Civil Judge while dismissing the suit of the applicant has held that the applicant has failed to prove his contention that he was the Hari of the land or that the respondent No. 6 does not reside in Deh by producing any documentary evidence in support of his contentions. The learned Civil Judge further held that no illegality was found in the order of respondent No. 2 and, therefore, the declaration sought cannot be granted and that the applicant had also not proved his contention otherwise. In the appeal the learned Additional District Judge while dismissing the appeal has observed:‑‑ "The land grant policy itself does not give any right to present appellant for grant of this land and the Revenue authorities were competent under the law to decide whether the land was to be granted to present appellant or to any other persons? The said policy was just for guidance of the Revenue authorities for this purpose and it has not created any legal right in favour of present appellant. Thus, legally, the civil Court cannot give such a declaration to the appellant /plaintiff, and the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kandhkot has rightly dismissed his suit." I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length. He has not been able to show as to how the view taken by learned two lowers Courts is erroneous or bad in law. In the case of Haji Muhammad Zaman v . Zafar Ali Khan and others P L D 1986 S C 88, it was observed:‑‑ "Revisional powers under section 115 Civil Procedure Code are primarily intended for correcting errors made by subordinate Courts in the exercise of their jurisdiction. Also ordinarily erroneous decisions of fact are not revisable, except in cases where the decision is based on no evidence or inadmissible '"evidence or so perverse that grave injustice would result there from." In the instant case admittedly, the petitioner has no written permission or order for cultivating or taking possession of the land which was admittedly Government land. It is not disputed that the Revenue authorities had no power to grant land to respondent No.

6. No irregularity in appreciation of evidence by the two lower Courts has been pointed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is also not contended that the impugned judgments are based on non‑reading or misreading of evidence. In the circumstances, no case is made out for interference by this Court in revisional jurisdiction. As such the petition is dismissed in limine with no orders as to costs. This revision petition was dismissed by a short order, dated 20‑4‑1986. Above are the reasons in support of said order. A.A. Revision dismissed.