'CH. NAEEM MASOOD, J.--The revision petition is directed against the judgment and decree dated 15-10-2004, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Khanewal setting aside the judgment and decree dated 15-4-2003; whereby the suit of the Petitioner/plaintiff was decreed.
2. The facts in brief are that Rashid Ahmed (deceased) the predecessor-in- interest of the petitioner/plaintiffs was a refugee, Rashid Ahmed -was transferred a portion of House No,23, Block .
No,8, Mianchannun, District Khanewal. Admittedly, Rashid Ahmed was issued PTD on 12-12-1959 Rashid Ahmed predecessor- in-interest of the petitioners/plaintiffs could only pay l/4th price and died on 8-6-1982. The petitioners came to know in November, 1977 that the permanent allotment of the house in question was cancelled by the . Additional Deputy Commissioner (General) with the powers, of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner Khanewal vide order dated 15-5-1984, therefore, the petitioners filed a plaint against the Province of Punjab through District Collector and Additional Deputy Commissioner (General) Khanewal. The suit was contested by the respondents.
3. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:--
(1) Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the disputed property? OPP
(2) Whether the order dated 15-5-1984 passed by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner Multan is against law, against facts, fraud, ultra vires are ineffective upon the right of the plaintiff? OPP.
(3) Whether this Court has got no jurisdiction to try the suit? OPD
(4) Whether the suit is time-barred? OPD
(5) Whether the suit is liable to be rejected under Order Vll, Rule 11, C.P.C.? OPD
(6) Relief.
2. The parties led. Their respective evidence. While rendering findings on all the issues, the learned Senior Civil Judge, Khanewal decreed the suit and directed the petitioners/plaintiffs to deposit the remaining amount. The appeal filed by the respondent was accepted on the ground that such-like matters could not be brought before the Civil Court.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contends that the suit was competent and that the order of cancellation of allotment was not only illegal but was also without jurisdiction.
4. The learned Assistant Advocate- General while opposing the instant civil revision, has supported the impugned judgment and decree.
7. I have heard both the parties and have perused the record.
8. The approach of the learned lower Appellate Court is illegal and is not tenable under the law for the following reasons :--
(i) The Civil Court was. Competent to entertain the present suit as a Permanent Transfer Deed had been issued to the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners and the cancellation order could not be passed by the ADC (G), after the repeal of Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act XIV of 1975 (hereinafter to be referred to "Settlement Laws Repeal Act"). The ADC was not a Notified Officer under the Settlement Laws (Repeal Act) nor a final and closed transaction of the transfer of the property in question could be reopened by even a Notified Officer. I am supported by this view by the judgment of the Honourable apex Court reported in 2005 SCM R 1650 (Muhammad Ayyub through legal heirs and others v. Ghulam Muhammad and others).
(ii) The issue of the allotment of Evacuee Land had attained finality and it could not be reopened by any authority of whatsoever nature. It has been held in 2002 SCM R 1470 Pakistan Transport Company Ltd. v. Walayat Khan through legal heirs as follows:- "Issue of allotment of evacuee land had attained finality and it could not be re-opened long after the repeal of Evacuee and Settlement laws with effect from lst July, 1974. In fact it was a past and closed chapter. Assistant Commissioner was neither competent nor authorized to deal with the case as there was no proceeding pending before him nor remanded by the High Court or Supreme Court on the cut-off date. Assistant Commissioner had acted without jurisdiction. His act in law was coram non judice and jollity in the eyes of law, therefore, Civil Court had the requisite jurisdiction to determine the vires of such act and such jurisdiction was not barred."
(iii) It is settled principle of law that balance of the sale price can only be recovered as arrears of land revenue. It has been so held by the Honourable apex Court in the case reported in 1980 SCM R 827 (Mst. Majeeda Begum v. Deputy Settlement Commissioner-II and others) as follows:- "We drew attention of the learned counsel to para 17 of the Scheme which was a complete answer to his submission inasmuch as it is laid down that the balance could be recovered as arrears of land revenue. When confronted with the aforesaid provision of law, the learned counsel had no answer. "
9. In my considered view, the Civil Court had the jurisdiction to try the suit. The Additional Deputy Commissioner (General) acted without lawful authority and jurisdiction to re-open a closed and final transaction of allotment. The remaining dues could only be recovered as arrears of the land revenue.
10. In sequel thereof the revision petition is accepted and the suit is decreed in favour of the legal representatives of Rashid Ahmed (deceased).