' This revision petition assails judgments and decrees dated 30-7-1990 and 8-1-1991 passed by Civil Judge and Additional District Judge, Jhang, deciding lis against the petitioner.
2. A short factual background of the case is that respondents 1 and 2 filed a suit for declaration that they are owners in possession of the house in dispute, the land underneath of which was purchased by them through a registered sale-deed dated 3-1-1946 from its previous non-Muslim owners, namely, Sardar Hardas Singh and Sardar Esar Singh, and thus they challenged allotment order dated 8-9-1976 passed by the Assistant Commissioner/Additional Settlement Commissioner (Lands), Jhang, in favour of the petitioner, on the ground that land purchased by them was not evacuee land as thus it could not have been allotted to the petitioner. Respondents 1 and 2 also prayed for a permanent injunction, as a consequential relief to the effect that petitioner and respondent 3 may be restrained from interfering in their lawful possession and title over the property subject of suit.
3. Petitioner, who was defendant in the suit, contested the same by filing his written statement.
Controversial pleadings of the parties necessitated framing of issues and recording of evidence on the basis of which on 30-7-1990, learned trial Judge decreed the suit of respondents 1 and 2.
4. Petitioner aggrieved of the decision of the trial Court dated 30-7-1990, filed an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Jhang, but remained unsuccessful as his appeal was dismissed on 8-1-1991. He has now come up in revision before this Court.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the only authority to declare the property in question to be a non-evacuee property was the Custodian and the Civil Court cannot declare that the property allotted to the petitioner was non-evacuee. He further submits that both the Courts below have incorrectly not adverted to jurisdictional aspect of the case and this lapse has prejudicially affected the case of the petitioner. He in support of his contentions referred to Painda Khan v. Akram and others (PLD 1951 Peshawar 49). Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that property in dispute is undeniably shown in the name of Central Government in the Revenue Record and thus was rightly allotted to the petitioner.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has not only refuted the arguments of the petitioner but has also urged that the property purchased by respondents 1 and 2 was neither an evacuee property on 1-1-1957 nor the same was included in the compensation pool and thus its order of allotment dated 8-9-1976 by the Assistant Commissioner/Additional Settlement Commissioner (Lands) was absolutely illegal, void and without lawful authority. He further contends that respondents 1 and 2 since purchase the land from its lawful owners, have raised Pakka constructions and are in its actual physical possession in form of a house which, by no stretch of imagination could have been allotted to the petitioner and that too on 8-9-1976, after the repeal of all evacuee laws. He in support of his arguments referred to section 2(3) of the Pakistan Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1957.
7. I have anxiously considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record. Undeniably land allotted to the petitioner was previously owned by M/s. Sardar Hardas Singh and Sardar Esar Singh sons of Aas Singh, who are shown to be in possession of this property in Jamabandi for the year 1946-47 produced in evidence as Exh.P.2 who sold it to respondents 1 and 2 through a registered sale-deed dated 3-1-1946 (Exh.P.1). The sale-deed in favour of respondents 1 and 2 remained unchallenged and being a registered document, old for a period of more than 30 years, has its own value and presumptions. Statements of P.W.1 and P.W.2 go a long way to prove that after purchase of this property by respondents 1 and 2, they raised Pakka constructions thereover and since then they are in its possession. Mischief involved in this case is that sale-deed (Exh.P.l) was not incorporated in the Revenue Record, most probably due to disturbances of partition of Indo Pak Sub-continent, which started just after its execution, inspite of the fact that Sardar Hardas Singh and Sardar Esar Singh were shown to be owners of this land vide Mutation No.371, dated 24-4-1941(Exh.P.9). Under the provisions of Registration Act, it was bounden duty of the registration office concerned to have the sale-deed incorporated in the Revenue Record, but such lapse on part of the official functionaries cannot be allowed to affect the private individuals, controversy, inaction above-noted, resulted in incorrect entries in the Revenue Record, which cannot be banked upon to the benefit of the petitioner. In the entire Revenue Record, property purchased by the respondents 1 and 2 is shown as Ghair Mumkin Khana and in view of such entries I think that it could not have been allotted to the petitioner as agricultural land.
Petitioner in order to rebut impact of the evidence produced by respondents 1 and 2, has produced no convincing evidence and only attempted to benefit himself out of the incorrect entries which occasioned due to non-incorporation of the registered sale-deed as noted above.
8. Petitioner did not take up any objection in his written statement regarding jurisdiction of the Civil 'Courts to declare rights of respondents 1 and 2 over the land in dispute and he further did not urge this point in his grounds of appeal before the First Appellate Court and rightly so because an evacuee property means any property in which an evacuee has any right or interest, by transfer or otherwise, on or after 1-3-1947, and since this property was sold out by the evacuees on 3-1-1946, it could not be termed as evacuee property. A similar situation was dealt by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan while dealing with the case of Hamid Hussain v. Government of West Pakistan and others (1974 SCMR 356) and it was graciously held that even where jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred and conferred upon special Tribunals, Civil Courts being the Courts of ultimate jurisdiction, have the authority to examine the acts of such forums to see the illegality or even mala fides, on their part. It was also held in this alighted judgment that Pakka structure not used for purposes subservient to agriculture, could not be allotted as land during settlement proceedings or as land available for allotment, in satisfaction of claim for rural land. In another erstwhile judgment of the Honorable Supreme Court, in the case of Pakistan Transport Company Ltd. v. Walayat Khan (deceased) through L.Rs. (2002 SCMR 1470), it was authoritatively mandated that Civil Court being the Court of general jurisdiction has power to nullify orders of settlement authorities which are coram non judice and that jurisdiction of Civil Court can never be taken away.
9. Both the Courts below have rightly appraised evidence on the file and have correctly exercised their jurisdiction. No misreading or non-reading has been asserted or pointed out, in absence of which no interference can be made in revisional jurisdiction of this Court. This revision petition having no merit in it, is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.
Revision .