1. ' This order will dispose of Civil Revision Application No,6 of 1999 Sikandar Ali v. Haji Abdul Karim and others and Civil Revision Application No,7 of 1999 Sikandar Ali v. Haji Abdul Karim, as they arise out of a common judgment and decree.
2. ' On 13-7-1992, Sikandar Ali (hereinafter referred to as the applicant) filed F.C. Suit No,137 of 1992 in the Court of II-Senior Civil Judge, Larkana, for declaration and permanent injunction. The applicant applied for the grant of S.No,1027 admeasuring 4 acres situated in Deh Magnaja Taluka Warrah to the Colonization Officer Sukkur Barrage. The Colonization Officer granted two acres and remaining two acres out of S. No,1027 were granted to one Muhammad Ramzan in open Kachehri on 9-10-1991.
3. The applicant preferred appeal before Additional Commissioner, Larkana, Haji Abdul Karim (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) also filed appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Larkana, for grant of S.No,1027 on the ground that he was Harri in cultivation of the land and resident of same area. The Additional Commissioner confirmed the grant of two acres in the said survey number in favour of the applicant. He cancelled the grant of 50 Paisa share viz. 2 acres in the name of Muhammad Ramzan and ordered for fresh disposal of the land vide order, dated 19- 9-1992. He further held that the respondent was in unauthorized possession. The applicant and respondent challenged the said order before the Commissioner in a revision whereof grant of two acres in the name of applicant was cancelled whereas the entire Survey No, measuring four acres was granted to the respondent vide order, dated 25-6-1992. The applicant was dissatisfied with the said order, therefore, he filed the suit with the following prayers:-- "(1) That the impugned orders of the defendants Nos.3 to 5 passed on 9-10-1991, 19-2-1992 and 25- 6-1992 respectively cancelling the grant of 4 acres in S.No,1027 to the plaintiff and granting the same to the defendant No,1, are illegal, mala fide and without lawful authority and the land stands granted to the plaintiff.
(2) That this Honourable Court be pleased to issue perpetual injunction, restraining the defendant from dispossessing the plaintiff from the S.No,1027 of Deh Mangnaja, Taluka Warrah.
(3) Awards costs.
(4) Any other relief."
4. ' On 14-4-1993, the respondent also filed a suit bearing No,F.C.59/1993 in the Court of IInd Senior Civil Judge, Larkana for possession and mesne profits against the applicant and others. The respondent alleged that Revenue Authorities granted him S.No,1027 measuring 4 acres of Deh Mangnaja Taluka Warrah. He was cultivating the land and took the produce of land. In the month of January, 1992 the applicant forcibly trespassed and illegally took away the entire crops and dispossessed the respondent. Therefore, he filed a suit with the following prayer:--
(a) Possession of agricultural land bearing S.No,1027 area 4 acres Deh Mangnaja Taluka Warrah.
(b) Rs,25,000 as the value of the Kharif Rabi crops of the land in suit for 1991-1992 and Kharif crop of 1992 and 1999.
(c) Cost of the suit.
(d) Any other relief to which the plaintiff is entitled.
5. ' The applicant and respondent filed their written statements in both suits in which they mentioned the same facts as they disclosed in their plaints. In the suit filed by the applicant the official defendants filed written statements by taking the plea that the suit property was leased out to the respondent from years 1974, 75 to 1978, 79 and then he was in authorized possession of land. They supported the order of the Board of Revenue by which the land was granted to the respondent.
6. Other respondents did not contest the matter. From the pleadings of the parties the.Learned trial Judge, consolidated both the suits therefore, following consolidated issues were framed:--
(1) Whether order of defendant No,5 dated 25-6-1992, granting 4 acres from S.No,1027 Deh Mangnaja Taluka Warrah to defendant No,1 is illegal, mala fide and without lawful authority?
(2) Whether the plaintiff in Suit No,59 of 1993 is owner of suit-land on the basis of its grant to him and entitled for possession and mesne profits.
(3) Whether F.C. Suit No,137 of 1992, is not maintainable and this Court's jurisdiction is barred by law?
(4) Whether plaintiff in F.C. Suit No,137 of 1992 has no cause of action?
(5) Whether F.C. Suit No,59 of 1993 is not in proper form?
(6) What should the decree be?
7. ' The parties led evidence in support of their respective claims. The trial Court after considering the evidence and hearing the parties' counsel decreed the suit bearing No,137 of 1992 and dismissed the suit No,59 of 1993 vide common judgment dated 12-2-1995 and decree dated 27-2-1992.
8. ' The respondent was dissatisfied with the said judgment and decree, therefore, he preferred two appeals before the District Court which were heard by 1st Additional District Judge, Larkana. He also consolidated both the appeals and decided them by a common judgment dated 25-2-1999 and decree dated 27-2-1999 by which he allowed the appeals and dismissed the suit of applicant being No,137 of 1992 and decreed the Suit No,59 of 1993 filed by respondent.
9. ' The applicant was dissatisfied with the said judgment and decree, therefore, he has filed the present revision application.
10. ' I have heard the Advocate for the applicant and respondent. The remaining respondents did not contest the matter.
11. ' Learned Advocate for the applicant has stated that the applicant was granted entire S.No,1027 measuring 4 acres and he deposited the amount. He has referred to ' Exh.126, by which he was directed to deposit the amount of 4 acres of S.No,1027. He contended that he had not compromised with Muhammad Ramzan at the time of grant of the land as such the Colonization Officer was not justified in granting 2 acres of the land to Muhammad Ramzan and remaining two acres to him. In proof of the said assertions he has referred to Exh.129. He has further stated that the applicant was not a resident of the area where the suit property is situated not he was Harri therefore, grant in favour of respondent was illegal. With regard to the allegation of lease he has stated that the applicant did not produce any document to prove that the suit property was granted to him by lease from the year 1974, 75 to 1978, 79 and solitary statement of respondent cannot be relied upon. With regard to the maintainability of the suit and jurisdiction of the Civil Court he has relied upon 1984 CLC 411, 1985 CLC 1817, 1974 SCM R 356. With regard to the conflicting judgments of two Courts below he has relied upon 1999 SCMR 1202.
12. ' On the other hand learned Advocate for the respondent has argued that the basic order of grant of land is Exh.129, under which only two acres from S.No,1027, were granted to the applicant and remaining two acres were granted to Muhammad Ramzan, therefore, the applicant was never granted 4 acres of land in S.No,1027. With regard to Exh.126, which was a letter issued by office of Mukhtiarkar asking the applicant to deposit the amount in which area of the S.No,1027 is shown as 4 acres. He has stated that the letter shows that it was issued in pursuance of grant order, dated 9- 10-1991, that clearly shows that only two acres were granted to the applicant. Therefore, if the office had shown 4 acres of area of grant of S.No,1027 in the letter it will not override the grant order dated 9-10-1991 as such the said letter is not helpful to the applicant and it can be ignored. As regards the residence of the respondent, he has stated that the applicant himself has produced the agreement by which the respondent had sold S.No,1028 which contains the N.I.C. Of the applicant and in that N.I.C. The address of the applicant is same where the suit property is situated. He has also stated that the Revenue Authorities had found the applicant in possession of the suit property at the relevant time and before that the property was under lease with the respondent therefore, he was entitled for the grant of land and had preferential right over the applicant who had inherited 15 acres of land and was not landless Harri. He has further stated that certificate issued by Mukhtiarkar showing different address of the respondent has got no value as the Mukhtiarkar was not examined. In this respect he has relied upon 1970 SCM R 506. With regard to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain the suit of the applicant he has relied upon 1982 CLC 55. He has further stated that it was sole jurisdiction of Revenue Authorities to grant the land or not to grant the land to anybody. In support of that proposition he has relied upon PLD 1966 Kar.
315. He has further stated that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred as the Revenue Authorities have exclusive jurisdiction in the matter.
13. ' I have given due consideration to the arguments, gone through the material available on record and case-law cited at bar. As regards the allegation that the applicant was granted 4 acres of land of S.No,1027. In this connection the basic document is Exh.129, which is a grant order passed by the Colonization Officer on 9-10-1991. This shows that only 2 acres of S.No,1027 were allotted to the applicant and 2 acres were allotted to Muhammad Ramzan as they entered into compromise during the Kachery. As regards the. Letter issued by the office of Mukhtiarkar Exh.126, which shows that the applicant was directed to deposit the amount of the granted land and this letter was issued in pursuance order 9-10-1991. This letter by itself does not confer any right, title or interest in the suit property. This letter is issued in pursuance of order 9-10-1991, therefore, it could not override the grant order dated 9-10-1991. If the office of Mukhtiarkar committed any mistake in the letter by mentioning the granted area in excess of grant order then it does not mean that granted area was increased. For the purpose of ascertaining the correct position the grant order is required to be examined and allotted area is to be verified from the said order. On verification of grant order, dated 9-10-1991, it is clear that only two acres from S.No,1027 was granted to the applicant.
14. ' As .Regards the order of Member Board of Revenue dated 25-6-1992, this clearly shows that the grant order dated 9-10-1991 passed by Colonization Officer was in violation of Condition No,7(ii) of Policy Notified vide Government of Sindh Land Utilization Department's Notification No,SB-III/1- 279/P/1704 dated 4-12-1989 read with Condition No,10(3). Under this notification no allotment could be made in favour of more than one person in the same lot. In the present case S.No,1027, was allotted to 2 persons viz. Muhammad Ramzan and the applicant, therefore, it was hit by the above mentioning notification. Therefore, the grant order, dated 9-10-1991 was illegal, ultra vires, void ab initio which is simply to be ignored.
15. ' The learned Member, Board of Revenue clearly observed that the respondent was in possession of disputed property as a lessee from the years 1974, 75 to 78, 79 and thereafter, the possession was unauthorized. But the fact remains that the respondent was found in possession and Harri of the land therefore, he was entitled to the allotment of the area. This observation of the Member, Board of Revenue has been confirmed from order of Additional Commissioner, Larkana, dated 19-1-1998, in which the Additional Commissioner, after hearing the parties' counsel, obtaining the report from Mukhtiarkar concerned and verifying the record found that the respondent was in possession of the land as lessee and subsequently, he was found in unauthorized possession.
16. ' The impugned order further reveals that applicant was not a landless Harri, but he had inherited 15 acres of land. The applicant did not challenge the observation of Member, Board of Revenue anywhere, in the pleadings. Thus, there is no illegality in the impugned order of Member, Board of Revenue.
17. ' Furthermore, the Board of Revenue is the final authority to grant or not to grant the land which was within the jurisdiction of Revenue Authorities, in pursuance of Revenue Law.
18. ' As regards the jurisdiction on the Civil Court this point has been resolved by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan, in the case of '
19. ' Zafarul Islam v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan PLD 1960 SC 117, in which the test has been laid down in respect of jurisdiction of Civil Court when the same is barred by other enactment. It has been held as under:-- .... 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 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 conditions 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 State the omission or irregularity alleged will be a matter for that authority and not as rightly observed by the High Court for a Court of law."
20. From the above authorities four main conditions are to be examined for ousting the jurisdiction of Civil Court or otherwise:--
(1) The authority should have been constituted as required by the statute.
(2) The person proceeded against should be subject to the jurisdiction of the authority.
(3) The ground on which the action is taken should be within the grounds stated by the statute and
(4) The order made should be such as could have been made under the statute.
21. ' If above conditions are fulfilled then ouster of jurisdiction of Civil Court is complete even if the authority committed, some omission or irregularity in adopting the procedure.
22. ' In the present case the Board of Revenue is constituted under the Land Revenue Act. The parties were subject to the jurisdiction of Revenue Authorities. The grant of land was within the powers of the Revenue Authorities. The orders made by Revenue Authorities were made under the statute. As such all the important requirements for ouster of jurisdiction of Civil Court are complete and fulfilled, therefore, the jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred to entertain the Suit No,137 of 1992.
23. After considering the material available on the record I am of the considered view that the impugned judgment and decree do not require an interference. There is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgment' and decree, nor there is any misreading or non-reading of the evidence, therefore, the impugned judgment and decree do not require any interference.
24. ' Above are the reasons of my short order, dated 10-1-2005 by which I had dismissed the revision applications.