2007 PLP 2938 (YLR)

JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.

The petitioner/plaintiff impugned the concurrent orders of learned trial Court dated 4-4-2005 and of the learned Appellate Court dated 7-7-2005, whereby the petitioner's plaint has been rejected under Order. VII, Rule 11, C.P.C.

2. The matter in contention relates to land measuring 96 kanals situated in Chak No.102/D, Tehsil and District Pakpattan. According to learned counsel, the land is the property of the Province but the petitioner has been cultivating the same for the past more than 25 years. It is asserted that initially, he was inducted as cultivator of the land by the Lessee, namely, Baddar Din. The suit of the petitioner was based on his right under a notification dated 3-9-1979 which create the entitlement of a cultivator Din possession to receive proprietary title in the land:

3. The petitioner initially agitated the matter before the revenue forums but he was non-suited by the E.D.O.(Revenue} on the ground that the appeal tiled by him was time barred. In the order passed by the E.D.O. (Revenue) dated 11-3-2002, it was also noted that the petitioner was not entitled to proprietary rights in respect of the suit land as he was independently owner of 100 kanals of land and therefore, did not meet the criteria set out in the notification dated 3-9-1979.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner did not, in fact, own 100 kanals of land and there was no Jamabandi or other evidence to establish to the contrary. It was, therefore,' contended that the petitioner was entitled to grant of proprietary rights, that the plaint disclosed a cause of action and thus could not have been rejected.

5. The learned Law Officer has controverted the above submission. Admittedly, the petitioner claims entitlement to conferment of proprietary rights under the notification of the Government dated 3-9-1979. To suppor this claim, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to clause 13 of the said notification which in relevant part, provides as under:-- "

13. Grant of Surrendered/ Resumed Land.

All lands which may be surrendered or become available as a result of termination or resumption of any temporary cultivation lease, may be granted under these conditions, in order of priority;

Fourthly to those who have been cultivating the land as sub-tenants under such lessees as were held ineligible to purchase proprietary rights under these conditions: Provided that no person who has occupied the land without the consent. of the lessee and/or the previous permission of the competent authority as required under section 19 of the Act or has cultivated the land illicitly or has manipulated any wrong entry in the revenue record ,regarding his cultivation shall be entitled to get the land under these conditions. "

6. The learned Law Officer rightly asserted that the petitioner was a trespasser in unauthorized occupation of the-suit land and had not obtained any prior permission from the Government allowing him to cultivate the land. It was also contended that the conduct of the petitioner (discussed .below) shows that in one way or the other, he has illicitly occupied and cultivated the land, at least since 1969 through multiple proceeding before Civil Courts ad before the revenue forums.

7. There is .much force in the submission of the learned Law Officer. I', firstly note that the petitioner has based his interest in the suit property on a consent decree in a suit filed by him against Badar Din (the original allottee) seeking specific performance of an agreement to sell. The consent decree was passed .without impleading the Province, which admittedly was the owner of the suit land. The said decree has no bearing on the rights of the Province. The petitioner also filed other suits, one of which culminated in the order dated 21-11-2001passed in C.R. No.1114 of 2001. The said order, in order to show the conduct of the petitioner is reproduced as under:

"Learned counsel for the petitioner after having argued the cause at length and after having consulted his client who is present in Court wants to withdraw not only this Civil Revision but also civil suit in the trial Court. In this view of the matter this Civil Revision is dismissed as not pressed and petitioner is also allowed to withdraw his suit in the trial Court. Consequently the suit in the trial Court is also dismissed as withdrawn.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner however, states that the petitioner wishes to approach Board of Revenue for the relief which may be available to him under the law. The petitioner may approach any appropriate thrum available' to him under the law for redressal of his grievance where his case will be considered on its own merits sympathetically:

3. Disposed of"

8. The petitioner has also been less than .forthright in the various proceedings commenced by him before the .revenue forums and the Civil Courts. In these circumstances and, in particular, in view of the terms of the notification dated 3-9-179, reproduced above, I am clear that the plaint of the petitioner was rightly rejected. Furthermore, I have come to the conclusion that the petitioner has abused the process of the Civil Courts and the revenue forums with the sole object of perpetuating his possession over the disputed .land even though he has no right to the same. For this reason also, he is not entitled to any relief under section 115, C.P.C.

9. For the above reasons, this petition is dismissed. M.H./M-437/L Revision dismissed.