' The brief facts giving rise to the present revision petition are that the petitioners are legal heirs of Muhammad Nawaz, who claims to have been allotted a lot in Chak No,389 Gharbi as Member, Cooperative Farming Society on 25-6-1953. Thereafter, he got lot exchanged with another lot of the Chak No,389 Sharqi through order, dated 15-1-1962. Respondent No,3, Allah Ditta son of Barkat Ullah challenged the validity of the allotment made in favour of Muhammad Nawaz and the subsequent exchange. The application of Allah Ditta was accepted by the Collector vide order dated 8-12-1969.
The predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners filed appeal before the Additional Commissioner, who vide his order dated 8-7-1970 accepted the same and restored the lot in the name of Muhammad Nawaz, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners. Respondent No,3 filed revision before the Board of Revenue, Punjab, whereupon the Board of Revenue set aside the order of the Additional Commissioner and restored the order of cancellation of lot dated 8-12-1969 vide his order, dated 1-11-1977. Muhammad Nawaz filed review application before the Board of Revenue, the same was rejected vide order, dated 19-11-1977. Thereafter Muhammad Nawaz challenged the order of the Collector, dated 8-11-1969 and that of Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab dated 1-11- 1977 and 19-11-1977 by filing civil suit, contending therein that, he was a regular and bona fide allottee of the lot and Member of Cooperative Farming Society of Chak No,389/W.B. (Gharbi) Tehsil.
Lodhran. The said lot was allotted to him on 25-6-1953. Thereafter, he exchanged the same with the lot with land in Chak No,389 Sharqi on 15-11-1962. The orders of Member of Board of Revenue and that of Collector are against facts, hence are ineffective qua his rights and sought a declaration to the effect that the said orders be set aside and petitioner be declared entitled to the grant of proprietary rights of the lot in his possession. The suit was resisted by the defendant/responded, contending that previously predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners filed suit for declaration which was withdrawn; then again he filed another suit which was also withdrawn with the permission to file fresh suit. Both the suits were filed on the same cause of action. Since the first suit was withdrawn without permission to file fresh, therefore, the petitioners' predecessor-in-interest was precluded from bringing a fresh suit on the same cause of action. The second suit which was withdrawn with permission to file fresh on the same cause of action was not maintainable; hence the present suit is not competent. The suit is barred by time. Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit. The predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners obtained the initial allotment through fraud and tampering with the record and his allotment was rightly cancelled by the competent Authority.
' Learned trial Court framed as many as 11 issues arising out of the pleadings of the parties after recording evidence dismissed the suit declaring the sanie to be barred by time, and also that Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit it view of the bar of section 36 of Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act. The appeal filed by the petitioners was also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge on 23-11-1994. Hence this, civil revision.
' The learned trial Court while deciding Issues Nos. 3 and 4, has held that the claim agitated in para.10 of the present suit is the same, which was agitated by him in the earlier suit and which was withdrawn by him as having borne fruit. Therefore, to the extent of that claim the plaintiff is precluded from agitating the same before the Civil Court. As regards, the orders impugned before the Civil Court were passed by the Collector and Member, Board of Revenue after withdrawal of his earlier suit (Exh.D.4), thus, the plaintiffs were held entitled to challenge the validity of the same. The issues were disposed of accordingly.
' Issues Nos.11 and 11A pertaining to the validity of the orders dated 8-12-1969, 1-11-1977 and 19-11-1977 passed by the Collector and Member, Board Revenue respectively were held to have been passed by the said Courts rightly exercising their jurisdiction vested under the law with them. It was further held that the plaintiffs had failed to show or point out any irregularity or disregard which would enable the Civil Court to assume jurisdiction against the decision of a competent forum, where jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred. By holding so the issues were decided against the- petitioners/plaintiffs.
' Issues Nos.9 and 10 were decided against the plaintiffs/ petitioners in the light of finding on Issues Nos.3, 4 and 8.
' Issue No,6 regarding limitation was also decided against the petitioners/plaintiffs by holding that the suit filed by the plaintiffs/ petitioners challenging the impugned orders passed by the Collector and Member, Board of Revenue is governed by Article 14 of the Limitation Act wherein the limitation provided for filing of such suit is one year for setting aside any act or order of an Officer of the Court in his official capacity. By holding so it was declared that the suit filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs is barred by time.
' Issues Nos.2, 5 and 7, no finding was given on these issues as they were not pressed by the parties before the trial Court. Issue No,1, regarding jurisdiction of the Civil Court is whether barred under section 36 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, was also decided against the petitioners/plaintiffs by holding that no irregularity or disregard was pointed out by the petitioners/plaintiffs, which could enable the Court to assume jurisdiction and decide the lis. The orders sought to be set aside and challenged were passed by the competent Authorities having jurisdiction under the law to, decide rightly or wrongly is within the jurisdiction of such Court thus, it was held that jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred under section 36 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act.
' Learned lower Appellate Court also dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs by confirming the finding of the trial Court on Issues Nos.1, 6, 9 to 11A and dismissed the same holding the suit to be barred by time and also that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred under section 36 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the respondent Collector and Member, Board of Revenue are bound to decide the rights of the parties in accordance with law, rules and instructions. Here in the present case the Collector as well the Member, Board of Revenue while deciding the entitlement of the petitioner/plaintiff wrongly held that the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner got allotted the land in question in his name by presenting a forged resolution passed by the alleged Cooperative Farming Society of which he was not a member, thus, declaration of the learned Collector and Member, Board of Revenue is against the evidence on the record; the learned trial Court, while dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs/petitioners had failed to advert to the evidence led, and documents produced by the plaintiffs/petitioners, thus, the impugned judgment of the trial Court is based on misreading and non-reading of evidence which amounts to material irregularity and illegality affecting adversely rights of the petitioners/plaintiffs.
Similarly the learned Additional District Judge while dismissing the appeal of the petitioner/plaintiff did not apply his mind independently to the facts, evidence and documents produced by the plaintiffs/petitioners and dismissed the appeal relying upon the judgment of the trial Court.
3. Conversely, learned counsel for the respondent No,3 argued that the civil revision is not competent as the same has been filed challenging the concurrent findings of facts and law given by both the Courts below; no irregularity or illegality has been committed by both the Courts below while dismissing the suit as well as appeal of the petitioners/plaintiffs. He further argued that learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to point out which document has not been read or misinterpreted by the Courts below, as well as which part of the evidence led by the petitioners was misread or was ignored by the trial Court as well as by the lower Appellate Court. He argues that in this view of the matter, the civil revision is not competent and is liable to be dismissed.
4. Learned A.A.-G. Appearing on behalf of Collector and Member, Board of Revenue argues that the trial Court had not declared the order of the Member, Board of Revenue or that of the Collector bad in the eye of law or had been passed without jurisdiction and it is only in such circumstances, the Civil Court can assume jurisdiction to declare the same to be illegal and without jurisdiction or based upon mala fide intention. Here in the present case, the learned trial Court by holding that the Collector and as well as Member, Board of Revenue were competent to decide the entitlement of the petitioners/plaintiffs and by doing so that they had not transgressed or exceeded the jurisdiction vested in them, hence it was rightly held that the suit filed by the plaintiffs/petitioners was barred under section 36 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the respondent-Collector and Member, Board of Revenue were bound to decide the rights of the parties in accordance with law, rules and instructions and if they failed to exercise the correct law and instructions, their order can be challenged by filing .a civil suit and the Civil Court being Court of ultimate jurisdiction, had the jurisdiction to determine the question of jurisdiction, legal merits of the orders passed by the Collector and the learned Member, Board of Revenue or any other authority under the Act can be examined by the Civil Court if the order is found to be wrong, the Civil Court will be competent to entertain the suit and decide the same. The case of the petitioners appears to be one of that, the merits of his case were not appreciated by the authorities concerned. The arguments raised by the petitioners can hardly be categorized as a legitimate reason to regard the orders passed by the Collector and, the Member, Board of Revenue under the Act, as without jurisdiction. In Muhammad Hussain Munir and others v. Sikandar and others PLD 1974 SC 139 it has been laid down:-- "It is well-settled that where a Court or a Tribunal had jurisdiction and it determined that question it cannot be said that it acted illegally or with material irregularity because it came to an erroneous decision on a question of fact or even of law."
' A reference to section 36 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act will provide that in all those matters which the Collector or other Authorities under the Act are empowered to dispose of such-like matters; the jurisdiction of the Civil Court has been excluded. The Civil Court, therefore, shall have jurisdiction, only if it is shown that the orders passed by the Authorities under the Act were not within their jurisdiction. In Zafar-ul-Ahsan v. The Islamic Republic of Pakistan PLD 1960 SC 113, it has been laid down:- "... If a statute provides that an order made by an authority acting under it shall not be called in question in any Court, all that is necessary to oust the jurisdiction of the Courts is that the authority should have been constituted as required by the statute, the person proceeded against should be subject to the jurisdiction of the authority, the ground on which the action is taken should be within the grounds stated by the statute and the order made should be such as could have been made under the statute. These contentions being satisfied, the ouster is complete even though in following the statutory procedure some omission or irregularity might have been committed by the authority. If an Appellate Authority is provided by the statute the omission or irregularity alleged will be' a matter for that authority, and not for other Courts of law. "
' I feel if the test laid down in this authority is applied to the facts of the instant case, the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts completely stands ousted. On the application of the respondent that the land was fraudulently got allotted by the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner by presenting a forged document showing to be a member of Cooperative Farming Society and the learned Collector while exercising jurisdiction vested with him under the law after conducting preliminary inquiry declared the allotment to be forged and fabricated document and cancelled the same from the name of the petitioners. The order was reversed by the learned Additional Commissioner and the finding of the learned Additional Commissioner does hot find favour with the Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab and the learned Member after examining the record in a very detailed judgment after discussing all the documents produced before him, observed that the finding given by the Collector to this effect that the allotment was obtained by presenting forged and fabricated documents showing to be a member of Cooperative Farming Society, whereas the name of the predecessor-in-interest of the,petitioners was not found in the list of the members nor there is any resolution passed by such Society in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, thus, claim of the petitioners based upon the very resolution and membership of the Cooperative Farming Society falls to the ground.
6. As regards of jurisdiction of Civil Court in Abdul Ghafar and others v. Government of West Pakistan and others PLD 1963 Kar. 215, learned Judge of the High Court, while examining the question as to whether Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit against the orders of Revenue Authorities on the grounds that they were passed on mis-appreciation of evidence or an erroneous view of law, Waheeduddin Ahmad, J. Observed ". The question to whom the land in dispute should have been granted was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Revenue Authorities.
Merely because the petitioners are dissatisfied with the finding of the learned Revenue Authorities on this point or the impugned orders are based on mis-appreciation of evidence such orders cannot be made subject-matter of the dispute in the Civil Courts".
7. I do not agree with the arguments that for determining the question of jurisdiction legal merits of the order passed, by the Collector or others authorities under the Act can be examined by the Civil Court and if the order is found to be wrong, the Civil Court will be competent to entertain the suit.
The jurisdiction of Civil Court cannot be made dependent on the correctness of the litigants' contention. What is to be seen is whether the authority passing the order was empowered under the Act to pass such an order. In other words the test laid down in Zafar-ulAhsan's case provided the best yardstick for determining the question of Civil Court's jurisdiction.
8. The other contentions raised about non-reading and misreading of evidence, learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to point out any particular non-reading and misreading on the part of both the Courts below. There is a concurrent finding of facts and law given by both the Courts below that the orders passed by the Collector as well as the Member, Board of Revenue while exercising the jurisdiction vested with them are not erroneous or illegal in any.
9. The revisional jurisdiction of High Court under section 115, C.P.C. Exercised by the High Court is attracted only in the cases where the lower Court has exercised a jurisdiction not vested with it by law or it has failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested in, it or while exercising jurisdiction the Courts below have acted illegally or with material irregularity. It is, therefore, quite clear that the High Court while exercising revisional jurisdiction cannot disturb the finding of fact arrived at by the lower Court in proper exercise of jurisdiction vested in the Court and upon consideration of relevant evidence on record. The finding of fact by the lower Court could only be disturbed in revisional jurisdiction by the High Court, if it is found to be fanciful, perverse or it C has been arrived at by a process which had rendered the exercise of jurisdiction vested in the Court defective. In cases of misreading of evidence or non-consideration of legal evidence on record, the exercise of jurisdiction and power possessed by the Court is rendered defective, justifying interference by the High ,Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. In the present case, both the Courts below had come to the conclusion after discussing evidence on the record that the Revenue Authorities while exercising the jurisdiction vested with them had rightly and legally passed the impugned orders, thus, the same cannot be discussed or set aside by the Civil Court as the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is ousted in such matters. The petitioners have failed to show that the orders passed by the Collector as well as passed by the learned Member, Board of Revenue were passed without any lawful 'authority.
' In this view of the matter, I find no merit in this civil revision, the same is hereby dismissed.