MUHAMMAD NAWAZ Versus MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN

ORDER

WAHEED AKHTAR ANSARI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL-III).--- This revision petition has been filed against order dated 02.02.2015, passed by learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Multan Division, Multan, whereby appeal of the present petitioner was dismissed.

2. Preliminary arguments heard and record perused.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that Muhammad Hussain was allottee of suit land under Criminal Tribe Scheme, who sold the land measuring 10-kanals, 10-marlas to Muhammad Rafiq father of the petitioner for consideration of Rs.1,44,375. This land was sold through agreement to sell dated 10-3-1992. However, the respondent No.1 refused to honour the said agreement. The petitioner approached the Civil Court, who vide order dated 30-4-2007 was pleased to decree the said suit with the direction to the learned District Officer (Revenue), Khanewal to issue conveyance deed in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner filed an application for implementation of the judgment and decree dated 03.04.2007 before learned Additional District Collector, Khanewal, who vide order dated 03.06.2014 dismissed the same with the direction to file execution petition before the Civil Judge, Khanewal. Then the petitioner filed an appeal before learned Additional Commissioner, Multan Division, which was dismissed on 02.02.2015. The impugned orders are not in accordance with law. Under the law, the revenue authorities are bound to implement the decrees of the Civil Court. The learned lower courts committed illegality while dismissing application for implementation of the civil court decree and also dismissing appeal of the petitioner. Vital rights of the petitioner are at stake due to non-implementation of the civil court decree. Finally, it was prayed that the revision petition may be accepted.

4. I have considered the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record available in the case file including the impugned orders. Brief of the matter is that the present petitioner submitted an application before learned Additional District Collector, Khanewal, for implementation of Civil Court decree dated 30.04.2007 passed in a suit for specific performance titled Muhammad Nawaz v. Muhammad Hussain regarding state land measuring 10-kanals, 10-marlas, situated at 16/9-R, Tehsil & District Khanewal for execution of conveyance deed in favour of Muhammad Hussain etc. present respondents and exclusion of land measuring 12-kanals, 1-marla out of total land measuring 77-kanals, 14-marlas allotted under the Criminal Tribe Scheme. Learned Additional District Collector, Khanewal, after hearing contention of the parties dismissed the said application vide order dated 3.6.2014. The operative part of the order reads as under:--

5. Feeling aggrieved by the order, the present petitioner preferred an appeal before learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Multan Division which was dismissed vide order dated 02.02.2015. The concluding para of the order is as follows:--

6. The conveyance deeds are issued upon grant of proprietary rights under section 30 of Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912 of such allotments, which reads as under:--

"30. Acquisition of proprietary rights. (1) Notwithstanding anything entered in any statement of conditions issued under the Government Tenants (Punjab) Act, 1893, a tenant who, either in pursuance of any such condition or otherwise by agreements with, or under rules issued by the [Provincial Government], has acquired proprietary rights in any land included in his tenancy shall in respect of such land cease to be subject to any statement of conditions issued under the above mentioned Act; provided always that he shall in respect of such land be bound by the conditions set out in Schedule-11 of this Act and be bound by the other provisions of this Act applicable to proprietors of land".

In this case, the petitioner is claiming relief without observing the mandatory requirements of any of above referred three eventualities, which is never admissible under the law. The impugned order has been passed on the same principle, which is quite lawful, the petitioner has failed to point out any lacunae in the impugned order. Hence, the revision petition is dismissed and impugned order dated 02.02.2015, passed by learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Multan Division, Multan, is upheld.

HBT/16/Rev. Petition dismissed.