P L D (Rev (PLP)

Date of Decree (1) Bhawani Dass. 3rd May 1941. (2) Mst. Ghulam Aisha 22nd April 1941. (3) Mst. Tai Bibi. 22nd April 1941. They applied for a rateable distribution of the proceeds of Hadayat Ullah's land under attachment. These applications were forwarded by the Civil Court to the Collector.

3. I have personally examined the endorsements of the Civil Court on the three applications. They merely read as follows:‑ "There is no file pending in this Court relating to the case of Sarfraz Khan versus Hadayat Ullah Khan. These applications may be returned to the Court concerned."

4. The procedure to be followed in such cases is clearly indicated in section 4 of the Punjab Debtors Protection Act which directs that whenever a Civil Court orders that land be attached and alienated temporarily in the execution of a decree for the payment of money the proceedings of such attachment and alienation shall be transferred to the Collector. This makes it clear that the Revenue Courts only come into the picture after a Civil Court has passed an order directing the attachment and temporary alienation of land in the execution of a particular decree and has transferred the proceedings of such attachment and temporary alienation to the Collector. The Civil Courts cannot transfer to Revenue Courts execution applications as such. The correct procedure governing such cases is that for each decree an application for execution should be filed in the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction and an order of attachment and temporary alienation should be obtained. Only then the case can be transferred to the Revenue Courts, otherwise section 4 does not come into operation. So far as the respondent, Sarfaraz Khan is concerned the Civil Court passed a formal order attaching Hadayat Ullah Khan's land and transferring the proceedings of such attachment and temporary alienation to the Col. lector. The learned Commissioner in my opinion, has committed no illegality or irregularity in holding that the Revenue Courts had no jurisdiction to entertain applications for the execution of the other three decrees merely because such applications had been forwarded to them by a Civil Court. All that the Civil Courts are entitled to forwarded are the proceedings of attachment and temporary alienation and not the actual applications for execution of decrees. The two applications for revision filed by Mst. Ghulam Aisha and Mst. Taj Bibi are hereby rejected. The application of Bhawani Dass is also liable to dismissal on the same grounds but it has already been dismissed vide my order of to-days date in R. O. No. 154 of 1945‑

46. In the grounds for revision mentioned in Hadayat Ullah's application dated 23rd July, 1946, it is urged as follows :‑ That the bunjar land which has been transferred to Sarfaraz Khan is absolutely necessary for the cultivation of the rest of the land of the petitioner as it is a catchment area. If the bunjar land is given to Sarfaraz Khan on Mustajari the rest of the petitioner's land will also become bunjar and the petitioner will not be able to maintain himself and his family at all As pointed out by the Commissioner applicant No. 1 made no attempt to substantiate this question of fact before the Collector. Even in the grounds, of appeal filed before the Commissioner it only alleged as follows: That if the bunjar land is given on Mustnjari then the income of the cultivated land will be reduced as it is a catchment area. The cultivated land will be ruined and the appellant will not be able to derive any income out of it. It is thus clear that while the applicant was content to urge before the Commissioner that there would be a reduction in the income of the cultivated area, he goes further in this Court by claiming that the entire cultivated area will also remain uncultivated if the whole of the unculti vated area is not left with the applicant. No reliance can obviously be placed on such sweeping and varying allegations on questions of fact which should have been substantiated before the Collector. Under section 6‑A of the Punjab Debtors Protection Act, 1936, the Financial Commissioner's powers of revision are restricted to satisfying himself about the legality or propriety of an order or a proceeding passed or taken by the Collector or Commissioner under the Act. Hidayat Ullah has failed to show any illegality or impropriety in the Commis sioner's orders justifying interference His appeal for revision is hereby rejected. Inform parties and their Counsel accordingly. K.M.A. Revision dismissed.