' SH. HAKIM ALI, J.--- Facts as stated by learned counsel and found from the record are that Allah Ditta along with Muhammad Hassan and Muhammad Ramzan, his minor sons, had filed a suit against Muhammad Yar, Ahmad Yar sons of Muhammad Sadiq and Province of Punjab, for specific performance on the basis of agreement, dated 23-1-1987, having been executed allegedly by Muhammad Yar, defendant No,1 on his own behalf and on behalf of Ahmad Yar, defendant No,2 with regard to lands measuring 44 Kanals, situated in Chak No,6/Fordwah, Tehsil Chishtian, District Bahawalnagar, after having receiving Rs,5,000. It was further stated in the plaint that father of defendants Nos.1 and 2, namely, Muhammad Sadiq was allotted 88 Kanals of lands in the afore- mentioned Chak by defendant No,3, Province of Punjab through Collector Sadiq had expired while defendants Nos.1 and 2 were his sons. It was further entered in the plaint that according to that agreement to sell, plaintiff had to make arable and cultivable the total land of 88 Kanals and after that exercise out of it 44 Kanals were to be transferred to plaintiff. It was further narrated in the plaint that defendants Nos.1 and 2 without knowledge and presence of plaintiff got an exchange of land in dispute from defendant No,3 in Chak Nos.139-140/Murad on 14-2-1989, so as to deprive the petitioners from the benefit of agreement to sell.
2. The suit was contested by defendants .Who denied the execution of the suit and the delivery of possession of the land in dispute to plaintiff. After framing of issues, production of evidence and appreciating that evidence learned Civil Judge 1st Class, Bahawalnagar dismissed the suit on 9-4- 1994 but plaintiff filed an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Bahawalnagar, which was accepted on 1-6-1995 and the suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiffs as prayed for. Hence, this civil revision filed by Muhammad Yar and Ahmad Yar, defendants/plaintiffs.
3. Petitioners' learned counsel submits that alleged agreement to sell, dated 23-1-1987 was a forged document because the land allotted to Muhammad Sadiq was resumed due to its having fallen within the prohibitory zone on 26-7-1976. From 1976 to 1987, it remained resumed. Afterward, an appeal was filed by defendants before the learned Additional Commissioner on 24-12-1987, which was accepted on 6-1-1988 and through this order, petitioners were allowed exchange of land. Therefore, on 23-1-1987, the alleged date of execution of agreement to sell, defendants were not owners or right holders so as to execute the agreement to sell regarding land in dispute, in favour of Allah Ditta, plaintiff. Apart of it, no contract could be entered into unless prior permission from the Colony Collector under section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 was obtained. In the plaint, plaintiff has not prayed for the grant of land having been obtained by defendants in exchange. The exchange has also not been challenged. A suit for recovery of Rs,23,000 earlier to the present suit was filed by Allah Ditta, plaintiff vide judgment, dated 15-5-1991 (Exh.D.6), which was dismissed. In the aforesaid suit, he had shown Rs,5,000 having been paid as loan to Muhammad Yar on 23-1-1987, the alleged date of agreement to sell. Therefore, the plea of having executed agreement to sell on 23-1-1987 and having paid Rs,5,000 as sale consideration was self-contradictory version qua the plea raised in earlier suit for recovery of amount of Rs,23,000. Therefore, the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge may be set aside and the suit dismissed.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the plaintiffs/respondents submits that defendants had got in exchange land and had executed agreement to sell, dated 23-1-1987 in favour of plaintiff.
Therefore, the plaintiff was entitled to get land in Chak Nos.139-140/Murad.
5. Heard and record perused. The impugned judgment and decree passed by learned Additional District Judge cannot be maintained and sustained in the eye of law because the alleged agreement to sell could not be executed by petitioners/defendants in favour of Allah Ditta on 23-1- 1987 when they were not right holder or owner of the land in dispute situated in Chak No,6/Fordwah.
Moreover, ownership of the land in dispute of Chak No,6/Fordwah was in the ownership of Government of the Punjab. How these persons (defendants) could sell out the land in favour of Allah Ditta, plaintiff without, permission of the Deputy Commissioner/District Collector under section 19 of the Colonization of the Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912. This is another impediment in the way of plaintiff. Moreover, the land in dispute of Chak No,6/Fordwah was neither in the ownership of the defendants nor the defendants were holding any right with regard to it but the learned Additional District Judge has granted the decree of the land which was owned by the Government of the Punjab, although there was no contract having been entered into by the plaintiffs with defendant No,3 Government of Punjab, The land in dispute was not vesting at that time in favour of defendants, therefore, how it could be sold away by them to plaintiff. The plaintiffs having failed to file suit with regard to the lands of Chak Nos.139-140/Murad, which was obtained by defendants in exchange, the suit could not be decreed by the learned Additional District Judge.
Moreover, there is no proof that agreement to sell was executed and amount of Rs,5,000 was paid to defendants. It may be mentioned that defendants are not only heirs of Muhammad Sadiq yet Mst. Nooran and Mst. Ghulam Fatima were their sisters while Mst. Hanifan was their mother and legal heirs of Muhammad Sadiq deceased. Non-impleadment of those legal heirs of Muhammad Sadiq is another set back for the case of plaintiffs. Therefore, by accepting this civil revision, the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned.Additional District Judge is set aside and the suit is dismissed as held by IA learned Civil Judge with no order as to costs.