' HAFIZ ABDUL REHMAN ANSARI, J.---Through this civil revision filed under section 115 of C.P.C.
Petitioners have called in question orders passed by two Courts below. First order, dated 16-10- 2008 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Vehari and second order dated 25-4-2008 passed by learned Civil Judge Ist Class, Vehari is impugned in this civil revision.
2. The brief facts of this civil revision are that the dispute between the petitioners Nawab Din etc. And respondent No,3 is with regard to allotment of Ihata No,64 measuring 18 Marlas 2 sarsahis situated in Chak No,303/EB Tehsil Burewala District Vehari. The claim of the petitioner is that A.C. /Collector, Burewala vide order dated 17-4-1996 allotted this Ihata No,64 to petitioners who deposited the price of the Ihata in Government Exchequer, warrants of possession was issued to the plaintiff/petitioners on 16-7-1996 and Rapt No,641 dated 11-8-1996 was entered in Roznamcha wakiati. Mutation No,11 dated 28-8-1996 was also sanctioned in favour of the plaintiffs and names of the plaintiffs were duly incorporated in the revenue record. Aggrieved from this allotment Fazal Din son of Paris respondent No,3 filed an appeal against allotment order dated 17-4-1996 before Additional Commissioner, Multan who vide order dated 27-5-1997 dismissed the same then respondent/ defendant No,3 according to the version of the petitioner filed revision the learned Additional District Judge, Vehari while remanding the case to the trial Court. Learned trial Court rightly held that the Ihata in dispute between the parties was meant for queens and could not be allotted to the petitioners. The ratio cited in case titled "Alam Sher through Legal Heirs v.
Muhammad Shard and 2 others" 1998 SCM R 468 is very much relevant for adjudication of this case.
In this case trial Court had decreed plaintiffs' two suits on the basis of possession. The defendants had filed an appeal before the learned District Judge. The learned District Judge allowed the appeal and dismissal the suits on the ground that in view of Section 36 of the Colonization of Governments Lands Act 1912, the civil court had no jurisdiction in the matter and the controversy could alone be decided by the revenue Courts. The petitioner had filed regular second appeals Nos. 67 and 68 of 1981 which were dismissed by the learned Judge of Lahore High Court Multan and had confirmed the judgment of the lower appellate Court. Against order passed by Lahore High Court Multan Bench this CPLA was filed in which leave was refused on the ground of lack of jurisdiction which reads as under:-Section 36 of Colonization of Govt. Lands Act, 1912 is reproduced hereunder:-- "Jurisdiction of Civil Court barred as regards matter arising under theAct.---A civil Court shall not have jurisdiction in any matter of which the Collector is empowered by this Act to dispose and shall not take cognizance of the matter in which the (Provincial Government) (Board of Revenue) or Collector or any other Revenue Officer exercise any power vested in it or in him by or under this Act."
9. In the instant case also the dispute of Ihata falls purely within the jurisdiction of revenue Courts.
In the ratio settled in the judgment supra the suit could not be filed. The civil suit was not maintainable. The jurisdiction of the civil Court in such like cases under section 36 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act is barred.
10. There are concurrent findings of fact against the petitioner which cannot be disturbed unless some misreading or non-reading is pointed out, for which the petitioner failed. I am fortified from the judgment of the honourable Supreme Court in the case of "Aurangzeb v. Muhammad Jaffar"
2007 SCM R 236(a) "Aurangzeb v. Muhammad Jaffar" (2007 SCM R 236(j), "Shafi Muhammad v.
Khanzada Gul" 2007 SCM R 368(a), "Muhammad Khaqan v. Trustees of the Port of Karachi" 2008 SCM R 428(a). This civil revision having no force is dismissed in limine.