2004 PLP 506 (YLR)

9. The aforesaid concurrent consolidated judgments and the decrees of the two Courts below are assailed by the petitioner in these civil revisions.

10. It is argued by the petitioner's counsel that:-- both the Courts below did not consider an important aspect that while allotting the disputed Ihata to respondents Nos.2 and 3, the A.C./Collector did not issue notice to the petitioner, whose application for allotment of the said Ihata was also pending before him; case of the petitioner was at par with that of respondents Nos.2 and 3, hence he was entitled to the allotment of half of the Ihata; both the Courts below had acted in the exercise of their jurisdiction illegally and with material irregularity; and the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to decide the case which was finally decided by the competent Revenue Authorities; it was prayed that the civil revisions be accepted impugned judgments and decrees be set aside and suit of the petitioner be decreed to the extent of half of the Ihata.

11. Both the civil revisions are opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents.

12. Arguments heard. Civil revisions and the annexures appended therewith perused.

13. Nothing was produced on record by the petitioner in support of his contention that on 13-9-1994 when the disputed Ihata was allotted by A.C./ Collector, Burewala to respondents Nos.2 and 3, petitioner's application for allotment of the Ihata was also pending before the said Collector. From the documents Exh.D.15 and Exh.D.16 produced by the petitioner it was rather established that application of the petitioner for changing classification of Ihata and its allotment to him was filed earlier by the A.C./Collector on 6-7-1994 for the restoration whereof the petitioner had moved review applications Exh.D.15 and Exh.D.16 to the District Collector, Vehari. Although the District Collector did not restore the petitioner's aforesaid application yet vide order dated 3-10-1994 (Exh.D.1) he had allowed the change of classification of the Ihata and had directed the A.C./Collector, Burewala to make allotment of the same under latest instructions of the Board of Revenue, after inviting applications from the eligible applicants. While passing the said order the District Collector, Vehari was unmindful of the fact that classification of that Ihata was already changed by him earlier vide his order dated 22-8-1994 (Exh.P.1) and the said Ihata also stood allotted by the A.C./Collector, Burewala to respondents Nos.2 and 3 on 13-9-1994.

14. The order of District Collector dated 3-10-1994 for allotment of Ihata was obviously not in existence on 13-9-1994 when that Ihata was allotted by the Collector, Burewala to respondents Nos.2 and 3, therefore, Collector, Burewala was not required to issue notice to the petitioner before making order of allotment in favour of respondents Nos.2 and

3. It has been observed earlier that on the said date any application of the petitioner for allotment of the Ihata was also not pending before the Collector.

15. It is clearly stated in the allotment order that before making the allotment, proclamation by beat of drum was made in the village for inviting applications for the allotment of the disputed Ihata. There is, therefore, no force in the argument of the petitioner's counsel that petitioner's application for allotment was also pending before Collector, Burewala on 13-9-1994 when he allotted the Ihata to respondents Nos.2 and 3, hence he was bound to issue notice to the petitioner before allotting the Ihata to respondents Nos.2 and 3 and that the aforesaid aspect was not considered by the two Courts below.

16. Next submission of the petitioner's counsel that case of the petitioner was at par with that of respondents Nos.2 and 3 as it was proved on record that the said respondents were also owners of land and Ihatas is without force because nothing was produced on record to show that respondents Nos. 2 and 3 were land owners. Petitioner's own- witness D.W.2 Muhammad Hussain who is Chowkidar of the same village had admitted during his statement that Ihatas of 5 Marlas each which were allotted to respondents Nos.2 and 3 in Bhuttoo Scheme were disposed of by the said respondents soon after allotment. D.W.1 Muhammad Ayyub, Special Attorney of the petitioner, while appearing as D.W.1 had admitted that petitioner was owner of 25 acres of agricultural land and is also allottee of an Ihata measuring 18 Marlas in the village. There was no order of allotment in favour of the petitioner whereas the disputed Ihata was allotted to respondents Nos.2 and 3 who had also deposited its sale price. Hence the case of the petitioner was not at par with that of respondents Nos.2 and 3 for the purpose of allotment of the Ihata.

17. Order of allotment in favour of respondents Nos.2 and 3 was set aside in appeal by the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) on 12-1-1995 and the said order was maintained in revision by the Member, Board of Revenue vide his order dated 18-4-1996. Concurrent- findings of the two Courts below to the extent of declaring the aforesaid orders of Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) and Member, Board of Revenue as illegal are not assailed in the civil revisions by the petitioner. It is also not disputed by the learned counsel for the, petitioner that A. C. /Collector, Burewala was competent to make allotment of the disputed ihata. Muhammad Ayyub, General Attorney of the petitioner, while appearing as D.W.1 stated in his examination-in-chief that order of A.C./Collector, Burewala regarding allotment of Ihata to respondents Nos.2 and 3 is not correct only to the extent of half portion of the Ihata as the petitioner was entitled to the allotment of half of the Ihata.

18. It has been held hereinbefore that neither case of the petitioner for allotment of Ihata was at par with that of respondents Nos.2 and 3 nor there was any application of the petitioner before the Collector for allotment of the said Ihata. For the reasons stated above, 'contention of the petitioner's counsel that case of the petitioner was at par with that of respondents Nos.2 and 3 and he was entitled to allotment of half of the disputed Ihata is, therefore, repelled.

19. Adverting to the third argument of the petitioner's counsel it may be observes that in section 115(1)(c), C.P.C. the words "illegally or with material irregularity" have reference to material defects of procedure and not to errors of law or fact, after the formalities prescribed have been complied with. My attention could not be drawn to the commission of any error of procedure by the Courts below.

20. Next contention of the petitioner's counsel that Civil Court had no jurisdiction to decide the case is ridiculous in view of the prayer made by him in the civil revisions that his civil suit be decreed. The petitioner had' himself invoked jurisdiction of the Civil Court against the orders of Revenue hierarchy with the prayer for setting aside the said orders, hence after unfavourable decision it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioner to say that Civil Court had no jurisdiction to decide the case.

21. Both the Courts below respectively had the jurisdiction to decide civil suits and the appeals arising therefrom. Findings on question of fact or law rendered by Courts of competent jurisdiction, though erroneous, cannot be interfered with in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction unless such findings are based on no evidence, are arbitrary or perverse.

22. A perusal of impugned judgments coupled with evidence shows that the concurrent findings both on fact and law recorded by the Courts below are based on evidence, supported by sound and plausible reasoning and do not suffer from any jurisdictional infirmity.

23. Both the civil revisions, being devoid of any merit, are hereby dismissed. M.H./M-2085/L Revision dismissed.