' Through this revision petition, the petitioners have called in question the legality of judgment and decree dated 12-5-1991 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Vehari whereby the appeal arising from judgment and decree dated 6-2-1988 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Vehari, was dismissed.
2. Precisely the facts of the case giving rise to this revision petition are that on 17-11-1977, Deputy Land Commissioner, Vehari directed to resume 1802 surplus units of land situated in Chak No.37/WB belonging to respondent No.2. While doing so, the Deputy Land Commissioner, Vehari ignored the registered gift-deed dated 13-2-1963 whereby respondent No.2 Mst. Asuda Bibi was shown to have made a gift of the land in dispute in favour of her adopted daughter, namely, Mst.
Mehtab Bibi respondent No.
1. Feeling aggrieved respondent No.1 filed a declaratory suit alleging therein that she is owner in possession of the land in dispute on the basis of above-mentioned gift-deed. On the contrary the petitioners/defendants controverted the allegation and resisted the suit. The learned lower Court out of the divergent pleadings of the parties framed as many as thirteen issues. Both the parties led evidence in support of their respective claims. Consequently, the learned lower Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff/respondent and passed the impugned judgment and decree. Feeling aggrieved the petitioners/ defendants preferred an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Vehari who vide his order dated 12-5-1991 dismissed the same and passed the impugned judgment and decree, hence this revision petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the learned lower Courts are against law and facts; that the findings of the learned lower Courts on Issue No.3 is a result of misreading and non-reading of evidence; that the learned lower Courts have got no jurisdiction under the relevant provisions of section 28 of Land Reforms Act, 1977 to adjudicate upon the matter, therefore, the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the learned lower Courts may be set aside.
4. On the contrary the learned counsel for the respondents strongly repelled the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners and supported the impugned judgments and decrees.
5. I have heard the learned -counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.
6. From the perusal of relevant of provisions of section 28 of Land Reforms Act, 1977 it is obvious that the jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred. Section 28 ibid reads as under:-- "Bar of jurisdiction.---(1) No Court shall call in question or permit to be called in question any provisions of the Act or of any rule or order made or anything done or any action taken thereunder.
(2) No Court shall grant any injunction or make any order or entertain any proceedings, in relation to anything done or intended to be done under this Act."
' Bare reading of the aforesaid section reveals that exclusive jurisdiction vests with Land Commission Authorities to decide such-like matters and the Civil Court is barred by jurisdiction. In this respect the learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on 1994 SCM R 74 wherein it has been held by their. Lordships "that the Land Commission Authorities were within jurisdiction and the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred under section 28 of the Land Reforms Act, 1977". Although the learned counsel for the respondents tried to controvert the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner but keeping in view the aforesaid relevant provisions of section 28 of Land Reforms Act, 1977 and relying upon the aforesaid judicial precedent. I am of the considered view that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was barred and the learned lower Court was not vested with the powers to try such-like cases. In view of the above discussion, the findings of the learned lower Courts on Issue No.3 are reversed and found in favour of the petitioner/defendant.
7. Consequently the impugned judgments and decree passed by the learned lower Courts call for interference by this Court.
8. Resultantly the revision petition is allowed and the impugned judgments and decree passed by the learned lower Courts are set aside and the suit of the respondent/plaintiff is hereby dismissed.