' RANA BHAGWANDAS, J.--- Petitioner is aggrieved by the High Court of Sindh, Hyderabad Circuit, judgment, dated 27-5-2005 dismissing Revision Application No,21 of 1991 arising out of concurrent findings of fact recorded in a suit for declaration and permanent injunction filed by him against the respondents.
2. Precisely stated brief facts appear to be that land in suit bearing U.A. Nos.69, 150/3 and 4 Deh Sirenwari in Taluka Sanghar District Tharparkar measuring 93-00 acres along with other land in Talukas Khipro and Sanghar was reserved for Forest vide Notification, dated 8-6-1946 issued by the Revenue Department under section 4 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 1927). Both the U.A. Numbers were owned by an evacuee, namely, Ladhomal son of Kundhmal. The Revenue Officer, Lioyd Barrage Scheme, Karachi was appointed under section 4(c) of Act, 1927 to be the Forest Settlement Officer to inquire into and determine the existence, nature and extent of any rights alleged to exist in favour of any person in the said land. Vide section 17 of Act, 1927 Revenue Commissioner, Sindh, was appointed to hear appeals from orders passed by the Forest Settlement Officer under sections 11, 12, 15 and 16 of the Act, 1927. It is not known whether any objection was filed or any appeal was preferred. Nonetheless, another notification under section 20 of Act, 1927 was issued on 27th November, 1947, in continuation of the earlier notification, dated 8- 6-1946 declaring the land in Khipro and Sanghar Talukas of Tharparkar District specified in the schedule to be reserved for forest.
3. Since the suit-land, prior to the afore said notifications, was owned by Hindu evacuee owner, it was treated as evacuee property and subsequently, transferred to the compensation pool of Settlement Organization. The land forming part of the compensation pool was later allotted to the claimants in satisfaction of their claims, whereafter Forest Department disputed such allotment.
The issue came up for adjudication before the Deputy Commissioner, Sanghar, who, vide order, dated 14-1-1972, held that the land already forming part of compensation pool and allotted to claimant followed by entry in the record of right mutating such allotment in favour of the new owner could not be claimed by Forest Department without land acquisition proceedings. For arriving at this conclusion, the Deputy Commissioner sent for reports from various quarters, including the Divisional Forest Officers, Khipro and Sanghar and came to the conclusion that the Rehabilitation Department had better claim over the property as against the Forest Department. He further held that the disputed land already disposed of as evacuee property, should be allowed to continue as part of compensation pool and consequently, dismissed the claim of the Forest Department.
4. This order was challenged in appeal before the Additional Revenue Commissioner, Sindh who dismissed the same with adverse observations against the Divisional Forest Officer. It was observed that essentially the matter pertained to the status of evacuee property, therefore jurisdiction vested in the Custodian to determine whether or not a particular piece of land was evacuee or otherwise. It was maintained that Forest Officer should have, at appropriate time, approached the Custodian and not the Deputy Commissioner, Sanghar for determination of title of land. Reference was made to section 22 of the Pakistan Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as "The Act, 1957") stipulating that any person claiming any right or interest in any property treated by the Custodian or Rehabilitation Authority as evacuee property may prefer a claim to the Custodian on the premise that the property is not evacuee property or his interest in the property has not been affected by the provisions of the said Act. Attention was also invited to section 41 of the Act, 1957, laying down that no Civil or Revenue Court or any other Authority shall have jurisdiction to ascertain or adjudicate upon any question arising in any suit, appeal, application or other proceedings as to whether any person is or is not evacuee or whether any property is or is not evacuee property or that the right or interest if any, an evacuee has in any such property. Referring to the judgment of this Court in Muhammad Khan v. The Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, West Pakistan PLD 1962 SC 284 expressing the view that the right, title and interest of evacuees in the property cannot be acquired after 1-3-1947, appellate forum further observed that the notification under which the Forest Department was claiming the land was issued on 28-11-1947, therefore, it could not change the status of the property without seeking redress from the Custodian.
5. Petitioner thereafter assailed both the orders in revision petition before the Member (Relief and Settlement), Board of Revenue, Sindh, which was dismissed vide order, dated 7-5-1978 upholding the findings of the Additional Revenue Commissioner, Sindh.
6. Dissatisfied with the findings of the fora in the revenue hierarchy, petitioner filed Suit No,122 of 1979 for declaration and permanent injunction in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Sanghar, seeking a declaration of title to the suit-land and a permanent injunction against the respondents which upon full dress trial was dismissed vide judgment and decree, dated 28-7-1986.
7. Petitioner being still dissatisfied preferred appeal, which came to be dismissed by learned District Judge, Sanghar, vide judgment and decree, dated 19-11-1990. Concurrent findings of fact and law were impugned before the Sindh High Court, Hyderabad, in a civil revision, which has been dismissed through the impugned order.
8. We have heard Dr. Qazi Khalid Ali, learned Additional Advocate-General for the petitioner and gone through the entire record as well as the impugned judgment of the High Court.
9. High Court apart from touching the merits of the claim of the petitioner has taken the view that the suit filed by petitioner and entire superstructure built thereon was violative of the provisions contained in section 79 read with Order XXVII, rule 1, C.P.C. Which was not maintainable at law.
Secondly, the suit-land was admittedly held by an evacuee person, which could not be acquired after 1-3-1957, and any notification subsequent to this date being in violation of law was invalid and had no legal effect. Thirdly, the question of status of the land fell within the exclusive domain and jurisdiction of the Custodian while Forest Department never approached the Custodian seeking declaration about the status of the land and its approach to the Deputy Commissioner, Sanghar was unwarranted. Consequently, all Revenue Officers had declined to exercise jurisdiction which was not vested in them. Lastly the High Court pointed out that after the abolition of Settlement, Evacuee and Rehabilitation laws by the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal)
Act, 1975, all issues concerning the suit-land had been set at rest which could not be reopened because the Forest Department did not approach the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner for issuance of notification, excluding the suit-land from the compensation pool and to the effect that it was not available for allotment to the claimant.
10. Having heard learned Law Officer on behalf of petitioner-Divisional Forest Officer, Sanghar, we are of the considered view that the expression of opinion affirming the findings of the Courts below and the discussion of legal position in the impugned judgment does not suffer from any legal infirmity or error of jurisdiction. Learned Additional Advocate-General has not been able to point out any misreading or non-reading of record by the Courts below occasioning any miscarriage of justice. He is not in a position to state as to how the suit instituted by present petitioner against the officials and the Provincial Government was maintainable at law in view of the provisions contained in section 79 and Order XXVII, rule, 1, C.P.C. Before the Civil Court. Indeed the findings of fact recorded by Revenue Authorities were not open to scrutiny by the Civil Court who however, did not find any defect of jurisdiction or illegality in the exercise of jurisdiction by three forums in the Revenue hierarchy. Dr. Qazi Khalid Ali simply relied upon the notifications dated 8-6-1946 and 27- 11-1947 issued by the Revenue Department in the name of the Governor Sindh declaring the suit- land as reserved for Forest without any support of law or factual backing.
11. For the afore said facts, circumstances and reasons, we are firmly of the view that no ground is made out for grant of leave and no question of law of public importance is spelt out in this petition.
12. Petition is, therefore, dismissed and leave refused.