Vide this judgment Civil Revision No, 333-D/2003 involving same questions of law and fact would also be disposed of.
2. With the concurrence of the learned counsel for the parties the civil revisions are being treated as admitted cases.
3. Facts necessary for the disposal of the revision petitions are that Respondents Nos, 2 and 3 had filed a suit against the petitioner and the Province of Punjab (Respondent No, 1), for declaration that they are allottees and in possession of Ihata No, 58 measuring 17 marlas 7 sarsahis situated in Chak No, 215/E.B. Tehsil Burewala vide order of A.C/Collector, Burewala dated 13.9.1994 and Mutation No, 325 sanctioned on 29.9.1994 and that orders of Additional Commissioner (C), Multan and MBR respectively passed on 12.1.1995 and 18.4.1996 are illegal and ineffective on their rights.
4. Their case was that they are permanent residents of the said village, were landless and did not own any Ihata, they were in possession of the said Ihata which was reserved for `Mueens', on their application its classification was changed by the District Collector vide order dated 22.8.1994 whereafter it was allotted by the A.C/Collector, Burewala to them on 13.9.1994 subject to payment of price in accordance with the instructions of the Board of Revenue in pursuance whereof the sale consideration was also deposited by them- in the Govt. treasury. Thereafter mutation of its transfer in their favour was also attested on 29.9.1994. However, on appeal by the petitioner the aforesaid allotment was illegally cancelled by the Additional Commissioner(C) on the ground that the Ihata was reserved for `Mueens' and could not be allotted to either of the parties. Against that order revisions filed by them as well as by the petitioner were also allegedly illegally dismissed by the MBR. It was asserted that both the aforesaid Courts also did not consider that in pursuance of the allotment order not only sale price of the Ihata was deposited-but residential construction was also made thereon by Respondents Nos, 2 and 3 by incurring huge expenses.
5. The petitioner had also filed a suit against the Province of Punjab and Respondents Nos, 2 and 3 for declaration that he is in possession of one half of the aforesaid Ihata and is entitled for its proprietary rights and that order dated 13.9.1994 passed by A.C/Collector alloting the entire Ihata to Respondents Nos, 2 and 3 and Mutation No, 325 attested on the basis of that order on 29.9.1994, are illegal and orders passed on his appeal by Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) against the aforesaid order of Collector on 12.1.1995 and the order passed on revision against the aforesaid order by MBR on 18.4.1996 are also illegal and void.
6. His case was that on his application classification of the disputed Ihata was changed, by the District Collector on 13.10.1994 whereby it was also directed that the said Ihata be disposed of in accordance with the latest instructions of the Board of Revenue but the A.C/Collector, Burewala, without notice to him had illegally allotted the entire Ihata on 13.9.1994 to Respondents Nos, 2 and 3.
7. Both the aforesaid suits were contested by the other side. they were consolidated by the trial Court and after framing consolidated issues and recording evidence, they were disposed of vide consolidated judgment dated 1.6.2002 whereby the suit of Respondents Nos, 2. and 3 was decreed and that of the petitioner was dismissed.
8. Appeal filed by the petitioner against the said consolidated judgment and the two decrees were also dismissed by ADJ, Vehari vide consolidated judgment dated 22.1.2003.
9. The aforesaid concurrent consolidated judgments and the decrees of the two Courts below are assailed by the petitioner in these civil revisions.
10.It is argued by the petitioner's counsel that-- both the Courts below did not consider an important aspect that while alloting the disputed Ihata to Respondents Nos, 2 and 3, the A.C/Collector did not issue notice to the petitioner, whose application for allotment of the said Ihata was also pending before him; case of the petitioner was at par with that of Respondents Nos, 2 and 3, hence he was entitled to the allotment of half of the Ihata; both the Courts below had acted in the exercise of their jurisdiction illegally and with material irregularity; and the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to decide the case which was finally decided by the competent Revenue Authorities; it was prayed that the civil revisions be accepted impugned judgments and decrees be set aside and suit of the petitioner be decreed to the extent of half of the Ihata.
11.Both the Civil revisions are opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents.
12.Arguments heard. Civil revisions and the annexures appended therewith perused.
13.Nothing was produced on record by the petitioner in support of his contention that on 13.9.1994 when the disputed Ihata was allotted by A.C/Collector, Burewala to Respondents Nos, 2 and 3, petitioner's application for allotment of the Ihata was also pending before the said Collector. From the documents Ex. D15 and Ex. D16 produced by the petitioner it was rather established that application of the petitioner for changing classification of Ihata and its allotment to him was filed earlier by the A.C./Collector on 6.7.1994 for the restoration whereof the petitioner had moved review applications Ex. D15 and Ex. D 16 to the District Collector Vehari. Although the District Collector did hot restore the petitioner's aforesaid application yet vide order dated 3.10.1994 (Ex. D1) he had allowed the change of classification of the Ihata and had directed the A.C/Collector, Burewala to make allotment of the same under latest instructions of the Board 'of Revenue, after inviting applications from the eligible applicants. While passing the said order the District Collector, Vehari was urfmindful of the fact that classification of that Ihata was already changed by him earlier vide his order dated 22.8.1994 (Ex: P1) and the said Ihata also stood allotted by the A.C/Collector, Burewala to Respondents Nos, 2 and 3 on 13.9.1994.
14.The order of District Collector dated 3.10.1994 for allotment of Ihata was obviously not in existence on 13.9.1994 when that Ihata was allotted by the Collector, Burewala to Respondents Nos, 2 and 3, therefore, Collector, Burewala was not required to issue notice to the petitioner before making order of allotment in favour of Respondents Nos, 2 and 3. It has been observed earlier that on the said date any application of the petitioner for allotment of the Ihata was also not pending before the Collector.
15.It is clearly stated in the allotment order the before making the allotment, proclamation by beat of drum was made in the village for inviting applications for the allotment of the disputed Ihata.
There is, therefore, no force in the argument of the petitioner's counsel that petitioner's application for allotment was also pending before. Collector, Burewala on 13.9.1994 when he allotted the Ihata to Respondents Nos, 2 and 3, hence he was bound to issue notice to the petitioner before alloting the Ihata to Respondents Nos, 2 and 3 and that the aforesaid aspect was not considered by the two Courts below.
16.Next submission of the petitioner's counsel that case of the petitioner was at par with that of Respondents Nos, 2 and 3 as it was proved on record that the said respondents we also owners of - land and Ihatas is without force because nothing was produced on record to show that Respondents Nos, 2 and 3 were land owners. Petitioner's own witness DW. 2 Muhammad Hussain who is chowkidar of the same village had admitted during his statement that Ihatas of 5 marlas each which were allotted to Respondents Nos, 2 and 3 in Bhutto Scheme were disposed of by the said respondents soon after allotment. DW. 1 Muhammad Ayyub, Special Attorney of the petitioner, while appearing as DW. 1 had admitted that petitioner was owner of 25 acres of agricultural land and is also allottee of an Ihata measuring 18 marlas in the village.
There was no order of allotment in favour of the petitioner whereas the disputed Ihata was allotted to Respondents Nos, 2 and 3 who had also deposited its sale price. Hence the case of the petitioner was not at par with that of Respondents Nos, 2 and 3 for the purpose of allotment of the Ihata.
17. Order of allotment in favour of Respondents Nos, 2 and 3 was set aside in appeal by the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) on 12.1.1995 and the said order was maintained in revision by the MBR vide his order dated 18.4.1996. Concurrent findings of the two Courts below to the extent of declaring the aforesaid orders of Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) and MBR as illegal are not assailed in the civil revisions by the petitioner. It is also note disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that A.C/Collector, Burewala was competent to make allotment of the disputed Ihata. Muhammad Ayyub, General Attorney of the petitioner, while appearing as DW. 1 stated in his Examination-in-Chief that order of A.C/Collector, Burewala regarding allotment of Ihata to Respondents Nos, 2 and 3 is not correct only to the extent of half portion of the Ihata as the petitioner was entitled to the allotment of half of the Ihata.
18.It has been held hereinbefore that neither case of the petitioner for allotment of Ihata was at par with that of Respondents Nos, 2 and 3 nor there was any application of the petitioner before the Collector for allotment of the said Ihata.
For the reasons stated above, contention of the petitioner's counsel that case of the petitioner was at par with that of Respondents Nos, 2 and 3 and he was entitled to allotment of half of the disputed lhata is, therefore, repelled.
19. Adverting to the third argument of the petitioner's counsel it may be observed that in Section 115(1)(c) CPC the words "illegally or with material irregularity" have reference to material defects of procedure and not to errors of law or fact, after the formalities prescribed have been complied with. My attention could not be drawn to the commission of any error of procedure by the Courts below.
20. Next contention of the Petitioner's counsel that Civil Court had no jurisdiction to decide the case is ridiculous in view of the prayer made by him in the civil revisions that his civil suit be decreed. The petitioner had himself invoked jurisdiction of the Civil Court against the orders of revenue hierarchy with the prayer for setting aside the said orders, hence after unfavourable decision it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioner to say that Civil Court had no jurisdiction to decide the case.
20.Both the Courts below respectively had the jurisdiction to decide civil suits and the appeals arising therefrom. Findings, on question of fact or law rendered by Courts of competent jurisdiction, though erroneous, cannot be interfered with in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction unless such findings are based on no evidence, are arbitrary or perverse.
22.A perusal of impugned judgments coupled with evidence shows that the concurrent findings both on fact and law recorded by the Courts below are based on evidence, supported by sound and plausible reasoning and do not suffer from any jurisdictional infirmity.
23.Both the civil revisions, being devoid of any merits, are hereby dismissed.