' MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.---This order will decide C.R. No.2365 of 2006 to C.R., No. 2367 of 2006 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 Jaranwala 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 orders were stated to be il4egal 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 filed 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 A.A.-G. 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 assistance of the learned A.A.-G. 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 D. W.1. In his very examination-inchief 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 v. Ghulam Muhammad" (1994 SCM R 975). I have gone through the said judgment. I find 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 rights 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.