HUSSAIN BAKHSH Versus PUNJAB PROVINCE

ORDER

The present petition for civil revision is directed against the judgments and decrees dated 26‑7 1981 and 8‑11‑1980 passed respectively by the learned Additional District Judge Faislabad and the learned Civil Judge Faisalabad.

2. The petitioner was temporarily allotted nine acres, seven kanals and six marlas of land under the Ejected Tenants Scheme. In 1958, however, fifty‑six kanals and seventeen marlas of land out of the land allotted to the petitioner was declared evacuee property and consequently the same was allotted and confirmed in the name of a displaced person, namely, Mst. Karim Bibi. The possession of that land was also delivered to the said Mst. Karim Bibi. The remaining land measuring two acres, six kanals and nine marlas continued to remain in possession of the petitioner till 1978. He was dispossessed from possession of the remaining land measuring two acres, six kanals and nine marlas on the ground that the land being located within the limits of Municipal Corporation, Farslabad could not be allotted under the Ejected Tenants Scheme and consequently the allotment was resumed.

3. However, on the application of the petitioner, alternate land in lieu of the land resumed in 1976 was allotted to the petitioner in 1978. The petitioner has also applied for allotment of alternate land in lieu of the land which was declared as evacuee property but his request for the same was declined and the appeal filed by him was also dismissed by the Additional Commissioner. The petitioner ultimately filed a suit before the learned Civil Judge, Faisalabad, seeking a declaration against the respondent to the effect that he was entitled to allotment of land in lieu of entire land which remained in his possession under the Ejected Tenants Scheme till 1958. The suit was contested by the respondent and the learned trial Judge framed the following issues on the parties' pleadings:‑‑

(1) Whether the Civil Court has got no jurisdiction to try the suit? OPD.

(2) Whether the suit is barred by limitation? ()PD.

(3) Whether the plaintiff is estopped by words or conduct to file the suit? OPD.

(4) Whether the plaintiff has got no cause of action to file the suit? OPD.

(5) Whether the suit is not proceedable in its present form? OPD.

(6) Whether the impugned orders of the Deputy Commissioner dated 2‑5 1978 and of the Additional Commissioner dated 1‑7‑1978 are illegal and ineffective upon the plaintiff's right? OPD.

(7) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of declaration and injunction claimed for? OPP.

(8) Relief."

Issues Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 were found against the defendant while the rest of the issues were decided against the plaintiff‑petitioner and consequently the learned trial judge vide its judgment dated 9‑11‑1980 dismissed the petitioner's suit. He went in appeal before the learned Additional District Judge who too vide impugned judgment dated 26‑7‑ 1981 dismissed the appeal. He further found that the Civil Court lacked jurisdiction in the matter.

4. It clearly transpires from the aforementioned facts that in 1958, fifty‑six kanals and seventeen marlas of land out of the land allotted to the petitioner was declared evacuee property and the same was allotted to a displaced person namely, Mst. Kairim Bibi. The plaintiff was thus dispossessed from fifty‑six kanals and seventeen marlas of land in 1958. The plaintiff‑petitioner filed the suit giving rise to the instant Revision Petition in 1978. During the intervening period of twenty years, he did not seek any remedy for allotment of land in lieu of land which was declared evacuee property and from which he was dispossessed in 1958. After 1958 he remained in possession of only two acres six kanals and nine marlas of land. He did not pay rent for the land measuring fifty‑six kanals and seventeen marlas from which lie was dispossessed in 1958.

5. Ejected Tenants Scheme is a creation of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912. The functionaries under the said Act have the exclusive jurisdiction to decide as to who is entitled to the allotment of the State land under any scheme framed under the said Act. The Civil Court certainly lacked jurisdiction in the matter. Thus, the question that, if the petitioner was entitled to allotment of alternate land in lieu of the land which was declared evacuee property in 1958, was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Colonization Authorities. The impugned orders of the Collector and the Additional Commissioner do not suffer from any illegality or lack of jurisdiction.

6. For the foregoing reasons no exception can be taken to the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the learned lower Courts, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. There is thus no merit in the under‑consideration petition for civil revision and the same is thus dismissed in limine.

M.I./3160/L

Revision dismissed.