MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.---This order will decide C.R. No. 2365-06 to C.R.No. 2367-06 as common questions are involved.
2. The respondents in these cases filed three civil suits . The common grievance made was that they were allotted suit land mentioned in the plaint in the year 1971 and possession was delivered.
Applications filed for conferment of proprietary rights on payment of price were dismissed by Collector Jaranwala Sub-division vide order dated 3.9.1984, on the ground that the land is located within the prohibited zone of Jaranwa,la Municipal Committee. Appeals were dismissed by the Addl. Commissioner (R), Faisalabad on 21.1.1985. While Board of Revenue Punjab, Lahore dismissed all the revisions on 20.5.1987. These order were stated to be illegal and void on the ground that at the, time of allotment the land was beyond the said prohibited zone. The suits were contested with the plea that the lands are located within the said prohibited zone.
Identical issues were framed in all these cases. Evidence was recorded. Learned Trial Court decreed the suits on 27.9.1995. First appeals filed by the petitioners were dismissed on 5.12.1998.
Revisions flied by the petitioners were allowed by this Court and the appeals were remanded back for afresh decision. After the remand learned Addl. District Judge, Faisalabad heard the appeals and dismissed the same on 22.6.2006.
3. Learned AAG contends that the suit lands admittedly being located within five miles limit at the time of conferment of proprietary rights, the applications filed by the respondents were lawfully rejected and the learned Courts below have acted with material irregularities in exercise. Of their jurisdiction while passing the impugned judgments and decrees.
4. I have gone through the copies of the records appended with these C.Rs. With the assistance of the learned AAG. There is no denial that the suit lands were allotted to the respondents under temporary 15 years cultivation scheme in 1979. Hakam Ali, Patwari was produced by the petitioners in all these cases as DW-1. In his very examination-in-chief he stated that, at the time of allotment of the lands to the respondents the land Was beyond three miles prohibited zone but at the time of conferment of proprietary rights, it was within five miles limit prescribed in notification dated 3.9.1979.
5. Learned'Addl. District Judge has decided the matter with reference to the case, "Province of Punjab through District Collector, Vehari vs. Ghulam Muhammad" (1994 SCM R 975). I have gone through the said judgment. I fined . That the matter was decided with reference to the instructions issued, by the Board of Revenue itself to the effect that the location of the land for the purpose of conferment of proprietary rights is to be determined with reference to the date of allotment and not the date of decision when proprietary, righfs were decided to be conferred. In the present case, this decision was taken vide notification dated 3.9.1979. In view of the admitted position on record, the land was beyond the prohibited zone at the time of allotment. It cannot be said that the impugned judgments and decrees suffer from any defect of law or jurisdiction within the meaning of Section 115, C.P.C. All the C.Rs. Are dismissed in limine.