' MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.---This judgment shall decide C.R. No,436-01 and C.R. No,437-01 as common questions are involved in both these cases.
2. On 24-2-1991, the respondents in each of these cases filed two suits against the petitioners. In the matter of C.R.No, 436-01 land involving is Lot No,18 measuring 198 kanals, 6 marlas while in C.R. No, 437-01 it is lot No,191 measuring 45 kanals 9 marlas. In the plaint it was stated that'the plaintiffs are in possession of the said land and are cultivating the same and are non-proprietors and as such they are entitled to conferment of proprietary rights. Petitioner No,2 passed an order conferring the proprietary rights on 28-5-1980 at the rate of Rs,10 per unit. However, later he reviewed the said order on 24-2-1982 and set aside the same. This order was stated to be illegal and void. In their written statements the petitioners took the plea that the respondents are not tenants and are not entitled to conferment of proprietary rights. Further pleaded that the land is reserved for allotment to the affectees of Chashma Barrage and that the earlier order was without jurisdiction. It.Was reviewed under sanction of the Commissioner. Issues were framed. Evidence of the parties was recorded. Learned trial Court decreed both the suits vide judgment and decree, dated 13-11-1995.
Learned District Judge, Bhakkar dismissed the first appeals filed by the petitioners on 22-9-2000.
3. Learned A.A.-G contends that it was not even alleged by the respondents that they were tenants within the meaning of law or that possession was delivered to them under lawful order, and as such there was no question of any conferment of proprietary rights. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, supports the impugned judgment and decree with reference to the reasoning stated therein.
4. I have examined the records appended with these C.Rs, I have already stated above the contents of the plaint in both the cases. It is but evident upon a plain reading of the plaint that it was not even plea of the respondents that they were tenants in the suit-land under the petitioners.
Needless to state that there was no plea that the possession was ever delivered under a legal order passed by the competent authority in terms of section 10 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab), Act, 1912. Proprietary rights can be conferred only upon the tenants under some Schemes initiated under said Law. There is being no plea, of course, there is no question of evidence in support of any such allotment or grant of tenancy under any scheme under the said law of 1912. This being so, the petitioner No,2 had no jurisdiction whatsoever to confer proprietary rights. The order was rightly directed to be withdrawn by the Commissioner. It is by now well- settled that every Court and Tribunal in our country has right rather an obligation to withdraw an order passed without jurisdiction.
5. Learned Courts below have stated that no power of review is available to petitioner No,2 under Thal Development Act, 1949, and the order could not have been withdrawn or reviewed, is not correct in view of the said settled legal position. I further find that the respondents in these cases represented that they are tender holders. Such a person is not at all entitled for grant of proprietary rights. Reference may be made to the case titled "Bashir Ahmad v. Member Board of Revenue and others (2006 SCM R 1093).
6. Both the C.Rs, are allowed. The impugned judgments and decrees are accordingly set aside and the suits filed by the respondents are dismissed No orders as to costs.