MUHAMMAD AJMAL and others vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB and others

' MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.--- The petitioners seek leave to appeal against the judgment, dated 25-9- 2003 of the Lahore High Court through which revision petition filed by them has been dismissed.

2. The petitioners filed suit before the trial Court to challenge the orders passed by the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) and Member, Board of Revenue in the proceedings arising from the consolidation of the land under the West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960. Their case was that the original scheme on the basis of which. Vandas were given to the parties was based on consent of all the parties. The appeal filed by the respondents before the Additional Commissioner against the said scheme was not maintainable, therefore, the Civil Court should declare the orders of the Additional Commissioner and Member, Board of Revenue in consolidation proceedings to be invalid and ineffective against their rights arising from the original scheme sanctioned by the original Revenue Officer.

3. We have noticed that the petitioners approached the High Court by filing Constitutional petition against the said two orders of the Additional Commissioner and the Member, Board of Revenue but the same was dismissed by a well-reasoned and speaking judgment whereas orders of the said two officers were upheld.

4. The suit filed by the petitioners was found to be barred under section 26 of the said Ordinance, therefore, through judgment, dated 4-7-2000, the trial Court dismissed the same. In appeal filed by the petitioners, the First Appellate Court, however, held that by virtue of bar contained in section 26 of the Ordinance and the writ petition having been dismissed by the High Court on merits, the suit was not barred, therefore, the order of dismissal of suit was converted into that of rejection of plaint under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C., through judgment, dated 18-9-2000 on acceptance of appeal. The revision petition filed by the petitioners has been dismissed through the impugned judgment, dated 25-9-2003 against which leave is sought.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners attempted to argue that the Constitutional petition was dismissed on technical grounds and not on merits, therefore, Civil Court was vested with the jurisdiction to decide the suit on merits.

6. We are afraid, the argument is wholly devoid of any force and also against the judgment of the High Court passed in Constitutional petition. The contention raised by the petitioners in the said Constitutional petition on merits as to Vandas of the land, quality of land, classification of the land and also the plea that they were given landless than their entitlement whereas the respondents were given land more than their entitlement were taken into consideration and held to be devoid of any force.

7. Even otherwise all these pleas fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Revenue Consolidation Authorities for decision in proceedings of consolidation of holding, therefore, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was rightly held to be barred under section 26 of the Ordinance.

8. For the foregoing reasons, this petition has no merits which is accordingly dismissed and leave refused.