MUHAMMAD ALI vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB and others

' FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.--- This petition is directed against judgment, dated 9-12-1999 passed by the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, in R.F.A. No,31 of 1991.

2. The petitioner was leased out disputed colony land measuring 63 Kanals, and 10 Marlas, on temporary cultivation, for a period of 15 years from Kharif 1971 to Rabi 1986. He made applications for grant of proprietary rights of the said land which were rejected by the Collector, Sahiwal, by orders, dated 12-12-1982 and 1-12-1983. Therefore, the petitioner filed a suit for declaration and perpetual injunction calling in question the aforesaid orders of the Collector and for being entitled to the acquisition of proprietary rights of the suit property. His application for grant of temporary injunction was dismissed by the Civil Court by order, dated 27-5-1990. The petitioner filed an appeal before the District Judge, Sahiwal, which was dismissed by judgment, dated 7-5-1991 and the plaint was rejected under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. On the ground that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was barred by section 36 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The R.F.A. No,31 of 1991 filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, by the impugned judgment, dated 9-12-1999.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the plenary jurisdiction of Civil Court to entertain the civil suit was not completely ousted by the provisions of section 36 of the Act. The learned counsel further argued that while dealing with the question of grant of temporary injunction, the plaint could not have been rejected after about three years of institution of the civil suit.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length. We find that the petitioner did not avail the statutory remedies of appeal and revision before the Commissioner and the Board of Revenue respectively against the orders passed by the Collector. The learned counsel failed to satisfy us that such remedies, even if availed, would have been an exercise in futility. The averments in the plaint do not spell out that the orders of the Collector were illegal or beyond the scope of the powers of the Collector and in any other way suffered from any jurisdictional defect so as to be amenable to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in view of the dicta of this Court in Abdul Rab and others v. Wali Muhammad and others 1980 SCM R 139 and Bashir Ahmad and others v. Manzoor Ahmad and others 1987 SCMR 1620. The High Court has taken a correct view that the plaint was liable to be rejected on account of bar of jurisdiction of Civil Court under section 36 of the Act. The High Court has also given valid reasons for not remanding the case on the question of rejection of plaint independently of the stay matter in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case.

Therefore, we need not express any opinion on this aspect of the case. The impugned judgment does not call for any interference by this Court. This is not a fit case for grant of leave to appeal.

5. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit, in this petition and the same is dismissed accordingly.