' Petitioner/plaintiff filed suit against, the District Collector Swabi seeking declaration to the effect that respondents/defendants have no right to declare him defaulter and to recover the amount of Abyana and Malia for the previous years for the persons whose list has been given by him. The said suit was resisted by the respondents/defendants by filing written statement. The learned trial Court after framing issues, recording pre and contra evidence of the parties decreed the suit vide judgment and decree 12-2-1998. Feeling aggrieved with the said judgment and decree, the Collector filed Appeal No.11/13, whereas Sher Aslam, petitionerfiled Appeal No.9/13 of 1998. Both the appeals were allowed, judgment and decree dated 12-'4998 were set aside the case was remanded back to the learned trial Court for denovo trial. The learned trial Court dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 28-6-2000, due to lack of jurisdiction. Petitioner filed Appeal No.11/13 in the Court of learned District Judge Swabi, but the said appeal was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 13-7-2000. Being not contented with the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below, the petitioner has filed revision petition in hand..
2. Mr. Lal Jan Khattak, the learned counsel representing the petitioner argued that the learned trial Court did not decide the suit issue- wise hence committed illegality. No law whatsoever was cited which bars the- jurisdiction of the Civil COurt while dismissing the suit.
3. It was also argued that the learned Appellate Court also failed to apply judicial mind in that in the impugned judgment it was stated that the plaint filed by the petitioner/plaintiff was rejected, whereas this was not the case. In fact the suit filed by the petitioner had been dismissed but the learned Appellate Court failed to appreciate the same.
4.. It was further argued that the petitioner/plaintiff had submitted list of defaulters to Tehsildar.
This fact was admitted by Wasil Muhammad Patwari Halqa who was examined as D.W.1. The petitioner/plaintiff had therefore, discharged his liability, hence was not liable to pay any amount on behalf on those defaulters.
5. It was also argued that none of the Courts below ever directed the petitioner to deposit the defaulted amount as required under section 91 of the Land Revenue Act, hence the petitioner/plaintiff could not be visited with penalty of dismissal of the suit. Moreover, no recovery proceedings have been initiated against the petitioners, therefore, the provisions of section 91 ibid would not be attracted. Reliance in thisregard was placed on Ruknuddin v. Abdul Wahid and others (1984 CLC 511).
' On the other hand Mr. Tariq Javed, D.A.G. Tepresenting the respondents argued that the petitioner/plaintiff had earlier filed Suit No.251/1 of 1992 in the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, ,Swabi, but the learned Court had returned the plaint to him under Order 7 rule 10 C.P.C. Due to lack of jurisdiction vide order dated 7-2-1993. The said order was not assailed in appeal/revision by the petitioner hence attained finality. The petitioner could not file subsequent suit on the same question of law and the factum of return of the plaint was suppressed by the petitioner, hence he came to the Court with unclean hands.
7. It was further argued that list Exh. P.W.1/1 produced by the petitioner was not the list of defaulters but was provided by the Department to petitioner for effecting recoveries.
8. It was further argued that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court wasousted as per subsection (xi) and
(xvii) of sub-clause of Section 172of the Land Revenue Act, hence the Courts below have properly appreciated the legal position.
8. It was further argued that the petitioner/plaintiff never submittedany list of defaulters. Turab, Wasil Baqi Navees, D.W.2 and Khaista Rehman D.W.3 who were responsible to maintain the list of defaulters clearly stated in Court that they were not provided with any list of defaulters. Patwari, it was stated was not concerned person, therefore, he could not state as to whether such list was ever supplied to Tehsildar or not.
9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
10. The only question which needs determination in this case is as to whether the Civil Court had the jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Answer to this question is in negative. As per sub-sections (xi, xvi and (xvii) of sub-clause (2) of section 172 of the Land Revenue Act the jurisdiction of Civil Court is excluded in matters which fall within the jurisdiction of the Revenue Officers. In the case in hand the petitioner sought declaration that he was not defaulter and was not liable to pay Abyana and Malia for those the list of whom he had already submitted to the Tehsildar. He had to file the suit because he was directed to pay a sum of Rs.7,09,064.02 by the Revenue Officer, which amount was allegedly received by the petitioner from the landowners, but not deposited in the Government treasury. The question of determination of amount of or the liability of any person to pay any cess, fees, fines, costs other charges imposed under Revenue Act and the amount of, or the other liability or other revenue assessed or to be assessed and any claim connected with any process for the recovery of land revenue was the domain of the Revenue Courts only and such question could be raised by the petitioner before the Revenue aiurt of competent jurisdiction and not before the Civil Court. A similar question came up for hearing in Rukunuddin v. Abdul Wahid and another (1984 CLC 511) in which it was held:-- "By this provision the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred where the claim relates to, or arises out of the collection by Government or enforcement of Government of any process for recovery of land revenue or any sum recoverable as arrears of land revenue. Section 172 (2) (xv) is not wide enough to cover all matters relating to recovery of land revenue or any sum recoverable as land revenue. It can be invoked when any collection is made by Government or any process for ex-recovery of land revenue or sum recoverable as arrears of land revenue is enforced by the Government. If anyone makes any claim relating to or connected with such collection, recovery of process, or challenges the same, then the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain such action will be barred."
' I therefore, without going to the other arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner uphold the judgments and decrees of the Courts below and dismiss the revision petition in hand with no orders as to costs.