WAQAR HASNAIN Versus SHAHADAT

ORDER

AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN, J. ---No one is present on behalf of the petitioner today. This civil revision relates to the year 1999 and since then it is pending before this Court. Therefore, I have no option except to decide the same on merits.

2. Through this single order I intend to decide this civil revision as well as Civil Revision No.747 of 1999.

3. The subject matter of C.R.No.746-D-1999 is the judgment and decree dated 05.07.1999 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Khanewal, whereby the decree passed by the learned trial Court in a suit for possession dated 05.12.1995 was reversed and the appeal filed by the defendant/respondent against the conditional decree of suit for recovery of possession was accepted. Whereas the subject matter of C.R. No.747-D-1999 is a suit for mesne profit, which was dismissed by the learned trial court on 05.12.1995 and the judgment and decree dated 05.07.1999 passed by the learned Addl: District Judge, Khanewal, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed.

4. The claim of petitioner/plaintiff as set up in the plaint is that he is allottee of land under the Nursery Farm Scheme for a period of 15 years and defendant has forcibly repossessed the land. Vide consolidated judgment and decree dated 05.12.1995 learned trial Court conditionally decreed the suit for possession and suit for recovery of mesne profit was dismissed. The petitioner/plaintiff filed an appeal before the learned first appellate Court. Learned first appellate Court finding that without impleading the Province of Punjab suit was not competent and further that as the claim of plaintiff is allotment of land under the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912, therefore, under sections 32, 34 of the Act ibid the Collector has power to get possession from the illegal occupants. The appeal was accepted and the suit for possession stood dismissed. In these circumstances, I am unable to disagree with the findings recorded by the learned first appellate Court. The view taken by the Court is absolutely correct. When the land is owned by the province of Punjab, without impleading the province of Punjab as party alleging the allotment plaintiff cannot get the decree of possession without a mechanism provided under sections 32, 34 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912. The decree passed by the learned trial Court was also not sustainable on the ground that the specific decree was not passed, rather a contingent decree for possession was passed subject to allotment of land by the revenue authorities, which cannot be said a judicial verdict as the Court is to pass a specific decree without any ambiguity after recording of evidence and preponderance of the same.

5. So far as the suit for recovery of mesne profit is concerned, learned first appellate Court has noted that the plaintiff has himself not complied with the condition of allotment, and only two installments have been paid by the plaintiff, therefore, he has no right to file a suit for recovery of mesne profit of the land owned by the province of Punjab.

6. In view of the above, this civil revision as well as Civil Revision No.747 of 1999 having no substance stand dismissed.

ZC/W-16/L Revision dismissed.