2003 PLP 52 (YLR)

(3) Whether the suit is time‑barred? OPD (4) Whether the plaintiff has not come in the Court with clean hands and as such is not entitled to any relief? OPD (5) Whether the verification of the plaint is defective and as such the suit is liable to be dismissed? OPD (6) Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the disputed land? OPP (7) Whether the impugned orders dated 11‑11‑1984 and 28‑5‑1986 passed by the Collector, District Okara and Additional Commissioner Consoli dation respectively are illegal, void, without jurisdiction, mala fide and not maintainable? OPP (8) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree prayed for? OPP (9) Relief.

2. The parties produced their evidence. The learned Civil Court vide judgment and decree dated 27‑4‑1994 dismissed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction filed by the appellant. This judgment was assailed in appeal and the learned Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 14‑5‑1995 dismissed the appeal. Against this concurrent finding of the Courts below the instant civil revision has been filed.

3. Arguments advanced by the learned counsel for petitioner are that after grant. of proprietary rights to the petitioner on 12‑10‑1980, only Board of Revenue had authority and jurisdiction under section 30(2) of the Colonization of Government Lands Act to withdraw the proprietary rights acquired by the petitioner and the Courts below have failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in them under the law. It is further contended that the allotment under Temporary Cultivation Scheme from Kharif, 1975 onwards up to this period was never cancelled, therefore, the judgment of Courts below are outcome of misreading of evidence on record and no presumption of truth is attached to the entries in Khasra Girdawaries.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that both the judgments of Courts below are well‑reasoned and the jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred by section 36 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act. She further submitted that in fact the present petitioner was not found to be in cultivating possession of the disputed land on target date given under the terms and conditions of Temporary Cultivation Scheme dated 3‑9‑1979.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for parties and perused the record. Petitioner by filing a civil suit has challenged orders dated 11‑11‑1984 and 28‑5‑1986. Order, dated 11‑11‑1984 is an order whereby District Collector, Okara observed that the allottee Muhammad Naeem Khalid does not deserve grant of proprietary rights as he had remained absent throughout from Court proceedings and sanction had been obtained from Commissioner, Multan Division for review under section 163 of the Land Revenue Act. The allottee had not been found to be in cultivating possession in Kharif, 1977 and also failed to appear before the Collector, who vide order dated 8‑11‑1982 dismissed the application for grant of proprietary rights and now order dated 12‑10‑1980 granting the petitioner proprietary rights is reviewed. Petitioner filed an appeal before Additional Commissioner, which too was dismissed on 28‑5‑1986, this order under challenge was not exhibited in evidence. However, the petitioner appeared as P.W.1 and produced P.W.2, Chiragh and Exh.P.1 to Exh.P.5 showing entries in Khasra Girdawaries. The defendant produced Muhammad Hassan, Patwari, and the copy of order of District Collector Exh.D.1, Order dated 11‑11‑1984 Exh.D.2 and copy of Khasra Girdawari Exh.D.3.

6. I have carefully examined both the judgments, those are issue wise finding and delivered after perusal of complete evidence. The provisions of section 36 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act are specific bar to the jurisdiction of Civil Court. Petitioner filed an appeal before Additional Commissioner, who vide order dated 28‑5‑1986 dismissed the appeal and the judgment of District Collector merged into judgment of Additional Commissioner. Petitioner was very much within his right to agitate the matter before the Revenue Authorities for the reasons that the Board of Revenue from time to time issues notifications and letters, which carry the force of law and petitioner is still possessed with the remedy to agitate the same before the Revenue Forum subject to the right of adverse party.

7. For what I have discussed above, interference in the findings of both the Courts below are hereby declined and the civil revision is dismissed. No order as to costs. Revision dismissed. Q.M.H./M.A.K./M‑1566/L