MUHAMMAD ISHAQ vs ABDUL GHANI and 3 others

ORDER

' SH. RIAZ AHMED, J.---The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment and order, dated 5-10-1999 delivered by a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court whereby the judgment decree passed by the Civil Court dismissing the suit instituted by the petitioner and affirmed by the first Appellate Court was maintained and the civil revision filed by the petitioner assailing the aforesaid judgments and decrees was dismissed.

2. The facts giving rise to the institution of this petition are that in 1956 the disputed land situated in Chak No,417/JB, Tehsil Gojra, District Toba Tek Singh was initially allotted to Abdul Ghani respondent under Grow More Food Scheme, but on account of non-fulfilment of the terms and conditions, the allotment was cancelled and the land was resumed and the same was given to the petitioner- plaintiff under the Temporary Cultivation Scheme on year-to-year lease basis. On 3-1-1972 the disputed land was allotted to the petitioner for 15 years on lease under the Temporary Cultivation Scheme. In the meanwhile, the respondent succeeded in restoration of this land in his name under the Grow More Food Scheme and the temporary allotment in favour of the petitioner on lease for 15 years was cancelled. In the year 1973 the petitioner instituted a suit to assail the cancellation of land from his name on the ground that he was not afforded an opportunity of being heard before cancellation of the lease. On 17-6-1977 the suit was decreed on the ground that the cancellation was void because no opportunity of show cause had been given to the petitioner-plaintiff. The respondent-defendant then moved an application to the Collector, Faisalabad, who, vide order, dated 2942-1979, after issuing notice to the petitioner and after giving him opportunity of hearing restored the suit land in favour of the respondent under the Grow More Food Scheme and held that cancellation of the lease for a period of 15 years in favour of the petitioner was legal. The petitioner- plaintiff again invoked the jurisdiction of the Civil Court challenging orders, dated 29-12-1979 and 15-8-1972 through which the land had been cancelled from his name. As a consequential relief, he also prayed for permanent injunction. The suit was contested and it was averred that the restoration of the land in favour of the respondent was in accordance with law and was in consonance with the instructions issued by the Board of Revenue and the petitioner-plaintiff had 'no locus standi to institute the suit. On the pleadings of the parties, issues were framed and the evidence was also adduced by the parties. The suit was dismissed on the ground that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction in a colony matter. Dissatisfied with the said judgment, the petitioner preferred an appeal, which was dismissed vide judgment and order, dated 13-4-1983. The said order, was then assailed by way of filing a civil revision, which was dismissed vide judgment, dated 5-10-1999.

3. Admittedly, the suit land was allotted to the respondent under the Grow More Food Scheme tut later on it was cancelled on account of the non-observance of certain conditions. After cancellation of lease the disputed land was then leased out to the petitioner till the year 1971. In 1972, the land was leased out to the petitioner for a period of 15 years under the Temporary Cultivation Scheme. Meanwhile, the respondent became successful in getting the land restored in his name under the Grow More Food Scheme vide order, dated 29-12-1979 passed by the Collector.

It is further pertinent to mention that while restoring that land and in compliance with an earlier decree, a notice was given to the petitioner to appear before the Collector and the restoration in favour of the respondent was ordered after hearing the petitioner at length. This order of restoration was passed on 29-12-1979. As far as the rights of the petitioner are concerned, the temporary lease could be cancelled at any time by the Revenue. Authorities because it had not conferred any right or title on the petitioner to claim its proprietary rights. To the contrary, the Grow More Food Scheme was a Scheme of permanent nature and is distinguishable from the lease on temporary cultivation basis. In accordance with the policy laid down by the Board of Revenue, regardless of the date of termination of the lease, the allottees of the Grow More Food Scheme were eligible to obtain proprietary rights and it seems that under the aforesaid Scheme and instructions the land was restored in favour of the respondent.

4. Adverting to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, we are of the view that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction in this matter to adjudicate upon the rights of the parties in view of the clear ouster of jurisdiction clause embodied in section 36 of the Colonization of the Government Lands Act, 1912. In this view of the matter, the order, dated 29-12-1979 restoring the, allotment in favour of the respondent is not open to exception and could not have been challenged in the Civil Court because to deal with such matter is the exclusive function of the Revenue Authorities under the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912.

5. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in this petition. The same is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.