' SH. HAKIM ALI, J.-~This is a strange case of its own nature, where a party having gone to seek justice has been dealt with injustice by the revenue hierarchy, Instead of establishing balance of the scale of justice, both parties have lost the land in question, which has been resumed in favour of Government by the impugned order of learned Member, Board of Revenue.
2. Facts spread out on the canvas of Court record, forming background to the filing of this civil revision, are simplified in following sentences :~ ' One Muhammad Bashir, predecessor-in-interest of respondents No, 1-A to 1-P was allotted land measuring 100 Kanals, situated in Chak No,262/HR, Tehsil Fortabbas on Grow More Food Scheme in the year 1960. Thereafter he was permitted to acquire proprietary rights on 21-10-1974 on the basis of Sale Scheme (As per learned Member, Board of Revenue on 21-10-1973). After that Muhammad Sharif, who claimed himself to be general attorney of the allottee filed an application for grant of permission to transfer the lot in favour of his son, namely Nazeer Hussain. Learned District Collector allowed that application under section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912 (hereinafter referred to as the Colony Act). So, in pursuance of that permission order, a Mutation No, 147 was got sanctioned on 27-8-1985 from Revenue Officer in . Favour of Nazeer Hussain, respondent No,2. Muhammad Bashir, the original allottee filed an application for review of that order, which had accorded permission to transfer the land in favour of Nazeer Hussain, which petition was rejected by the learned Collector. Appeal Was filed before the learned Commissioner by Muhammad Bashir but that too was dismissed on 19-4-1991. Aggrieved from that order, Muhammad Bashir filed a revision before the learned Member, Board of Revenue bearing ROR No,443 of 1992 (Muhammad Bashir v. Nazeer Hussain). Instead of redressing the grievance of Muhammad Bashir, the. Original allottee, learned Member, Board of Revenue ordered the resumption of the land granted to Muhammad Bashir by his order dated 27-11-1993. So, aggrieved from that order, the original allottee, Muhammad Bashir filed a suit for declaration before the learned Civil Court to claim ownership and possession of the land in dispute with prayer of declaring the order dated 27-11-1993, to be illegal, unlawful and without jurisdiction. He had also prayed in that suit for passing of declaration that Mutation No, 147 sanctioned on 28-7-1985, on the basis of alleged power of attorney dated 31-7-1971 in favour of Nazeer Hussain was fictitious, 'collusive, illegal, against facts and without power and authority. In the aforesaid suit, he had also prayed for grant of consequential relief of permanent injunction, restraining defendants not to interfere into the ownership and possession of the plaintiff, upon the land in dispute. The suit was contested but was decreed on 29-7-1997, by the learned Civil Judge 1st Class, Bahawalnagar, in favour of Muhammad Bashir, plaintiff. Appeal filed before the learned Additional District Judge could not succeed as it was dismissed on 2-3-2002. It is worth mentioning that Nazeer Ahmad son of Muhammad Sharif has not filed any revision against that judgment and decree passed by learned Additional District Judge, Bahawalnagar. But the Province of Punjab has come forward to file the instant civil revision against the impugned judgment and decree.
3. Learned A.A.-G. Has submitted that judgment and decree passed by learned Additional District Judge is illegal and without jurisdiction in view of provision of section 36 of the Colony Act, which has barred the jurisdiction of Civil Court to entertain the kind of instant suits. Therefore, the judgment and decree may be set aside. The learned Law Officer has referred to Alam Sher through Legal Heirs v. Muhammad Sharif and 2 others 1998 SCM R 468 and Muhammad Azam v. Mst.
Bagbari and others 2002 SCMR 1083. Further submits that both the learned Courts below have passed the judgment and decree without appreciating the evidence on record, Muhammad Bashir, the plaintiff was never in possession of the land in dispute but had got conveyance deed issued in his favour without complying with terms and conditions of the allotment. The land was not cultivable but the formal conveyance deed was got issued. Muhammad Bashir, the original allottee had not displayed and proved his possession through any Revenue Record while obtaining proprietary rights of lands in dispute. Therefore, the order was correctly passed by learned Member, Board of Revenue resuming the land in dispute.
4. Learned counsel, appearing on behalf of learned original counsel for respondent No,2 upon instruction submits that respondent No,2 had got no objection if the impugned judgment and decree passed in favour of Muhammad Bashir is upheld. He has also referred to statement dated 25-7-1997, which was got recorded by learned counsel for Nazeer Hussain, respondent No,2 before learned Civil Court that in case decree was passed in favour of Muhammad Bashir, he would have no objection . In these circumstances, Nazeer Hussain is not a contestant against the judgment and decree passed in favour of plaintiff, Muhammad Bashir.
5. Learned counsel for respondent No,21-A to 1-P (Legal heirs of Muhammad Bashir, the original allottee) submits that no notice was ever issued by the learned Member, Board of Revenue under section 30(2) of the Colony Act. The dispute had in fact arisen between Muhammad Bashir and Nazeer Hussain, Muhammad Sharif with regard to permission granted for the transfer of the land to Nazeer Hussain and sanctioning of Mutation No, 147 dated 28-7-1985. There was no controversy with regard to the violation of terms and conditions of allotment. No notice to this effect was issued by any Revenue Authority. The revision filed before the learned Member, Board of Revenue was also with regard to sanction of mutation No, 147 and rejection of petition for review of order granting permission under section 19 of the Colony Act in favour of respondent No,2. In that revision, - learned Member, Board of Revenue could not pass the impugned order for the forfeiture of the allotment. It has also been argued by learned counsel that after issuance of formal conveyance deed in favour of the allottee, the provisions of the Colony Act were not applicable and the plaintiff was to be issued a particular and specific notice with allegations, if the allotment was considered to have been obtained on the basis of any fraud or misrepresentation, then opportunity to defend the notice was also to be granted to the allottee. Therefore, the impugned judgment and decree passed by both the learned Courts below may be upheld.
6. The hearing of arguments and the scrutiny of the record have swept me towards conclusion that the instant civil revision filed by Province of Punjab cannot succeed because the learned Member, Board of Revenue had no jurisdiction/ power to resume the land which had become the property in the ownership of Muhammad Bashir, plaintiff. . If the provision of section 30 of the Colony Act was to be invoked by the learned Member, Board of Revenue, in such an event, there must have been a notice issued to the allottee, specifying .And pointing out the allegations of the kind of fraud or misrepresentation which allegedly was committed by Muhammad Bashir, the original allottee, in the process of obtaining State land and its formal conveyance deed. No notice was issued and no opportunity of hearing for cancellation of allotment in favour of Muhammad Bashir was granted by the learned Member, Board of Revenue as admitted by learned A.A.-G. And found from the record.
No chance to meet the allegations was granted. The dispute for resolution before the learned Member, Board of Revenue was not with regard to the cancellation of original allotment of pata malkiyat issued in favour of Muhammad Bashir allottee/purchaser , but it was a matter between two persons i.e, Muhammad Bashir and his alleged transferee Nazeer Hussain. While adjudicating that dispute between two private persons, how the Government could be granted benefit was a strange phenomenon. Instead of resolving the disputations questions of the parties, the learned Member, Board of Revenue has penalized both the parties for bringing their dispute before him by ordering the cancellation of the allotment/purchase of the land itself. This procedure, manner and method cannot be approved by a Court of law. The order was arbitrary, whimsical, contrary to principles and rules of administration of justice, illegal, void and without jurisdiction, so it was rightly declared so by the learned Court below, which were conferred jurisdiction by law to declare such orders to be without jurisdiction and section 36 of the Colony Act was not a bar in the way of Civil Court. Therefore, I do not see any flaw or defect of jurisdictional nature in the concurrent findings rendered and delivered by both the learned Courts below. The impugned judgment and decree passed by learned Additional District Judge is upheld and the civil revision is dismissed.
7. With the concurrence of learned counsel for the parties, this civil revision has been heard and disposed of as a Notice Case.