' MUHAMMAD KHALID MEHMOOD KHAN, J.---The present revision petition has been directed against the judgment and decree, dated 18-1-2002 passed by the learned Additional District Judge Khushab whereby the appeal of the respondent was accepted and the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned civil Court was set aside
2. Briefly stated the facts relevant for the disposal of revision petition are that the respondent/plaintiff filed a suit claiming that he is the owner in possession of the land measuring 80 kanals as detailed in the heading of the plaint. He asserted that the suit-land was allotted to him in the year, 1959-60 under Grow More Food Scheme and after hard work he made it cultivable and since the date of allotment he is in absolute possession of the same. He further asserted that he spent a lot of money and fulfilled all the terms and conditions for grant of proprietary rights which were transferred to him vide order, dated 5-6-1976 by the Collector. He deposited a sum of Rs,1000 sale price of the land vide receipt, dated 6-12-1978. He further asserts that one of his opponent filed a false application against him and the Collector cancelled his allotment vide order, dated 5-5-1991 illegally and without any lawful justification. He assailed the order, dated 5-5-1991 through an appeal which too was dismissed vide order, dated 22-2-1993. He further assailed both the orders through a revision petition before the Board of Revenue. The revision also failed on 3-8- 1994. The plaintiff assailed these three orders, dated 5-5-1991, 22-2-1993 and 3-8-1994 through a civil suit claiming that land was rightly allotted to him and land measuring 81 kanals, 5 marlas was transferred to him by his father and when the suit land was allotted to him he was not a minor.
3. The learned trial Court out of divergent pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues:-- "ISSUES:
(1) Whether the orders, dated 5-5-1991, 22-2-1993 and 3-8-1994 passed by the respondents respectively are illegal against law, facts and void and without authority and the same are liable to be set aside? OPP
(2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declaration and permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP
(3) Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action and locus standi to file the suit? OPD
(4) Whether the civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit? OPD
(5) Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form? OPD
(6) Whether the plaintiff is estopped to file the suit due to his own words and conduct? OPD
(7) Whether the suit is false, frivolous and the defendants are entitled to special costs under section 35-A, C.P.C.? OPD
(8) Relief?"
4. The appellant appeared as P.W.1. And tendered in evidence attested copy of order, dated 5-5- 1991 Exh.P-1, order, dated 22-2-1993 Exh.P-2, order, dated 3-8-1994 Exh.P-1, copy of payment of receipt Exh.P-4, copy of Khasra Girdawry Dch.P-5, copy of Jamma Bandi Exh.P-6, order for grant of proprietary rights, dated 6-12-1978 Exh.P-7 and lastly copy of Mutation No,91 as Exh.P-8.
5. The respondent examined Mr. Munir Ahmad Junior Clerk CA office as D.W.1. The learned Government Pleader tendered in evidence photocopy of I.D. Card of the appellant as Mark-A and copy of Khasra Girdawary as Exh.D.1.
6. The learned trial Court decided the issue of jurisdiction in favour of petitioner but findings on issue No,4 were against the petitioner. The learned Court below held that at the time of allotment of the land the petitioner was minor and his father got the land allotted in his favour fraudulently. It was further held that at the time of allotment, the scheme, Grow More Food, was not applicable to the petitioner. The petitioner assailed the judgment and decree of the trial Court through an appeal.
7. The learned appellate Court set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court by reversing the findings on issue No,4 and decreed the suit of petitioner.
8. The respondent/Government has filed Civil Revision against the judgment and decree of learned appeal Court.
9. The learned Assistant Advocate-General appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that the judgment and decree passed by the learned appeal Court is at variance. The impugned judgment suffer from misreading and non-reading of the record. The impugned judgment and decree is based on erroneous assumptions of law and facts of the case. The findings on issue Nos.1 to 3 was wrongly set aside by the learned appeal Court. The impugned judgment is contrary to law, facts and _record. No allotment order has been placed on record by the plaintiff and as such in the absence of allotment order, no decree can be passed. Further adds that the Revenue Courts have held that the allotment in favour of the respondent is not covered under scheme Grow More Food Notification Nos. 6539/56/57/579-C(G), dated 23-11-1956.
10. Learned counsel for the respondent supported the judgment passed by the learned appeal Court and claimed that the same has been passed after perusing the record.
11. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their assistance.
12. The most important factor which requires consideration of the Court was the allotment letter.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that there is no allotment letter in favour of the respondent as such the learned appeal Court has wrongly accepted the appeal as..-1 set aside the judgment of lower Court.
13. I have gone through the record with the assistance of both the learned counsel.
14. Perusal of the plaint shows that in para. Nos. 1 and 2 of the plaint the respondent specifically and categorically asserted that the land was allotted to him in the year, 1959-60 under Grow More Food Scheme and he has paid the price of the land. In reply to these assertions the petitioners/defendants through their written statement admitted.... That the suit-land was allotted to the respondent under the Grow More Food Scheme in 1959-60, but the said allotment has been confiscated in favour of the State. In reply to the para. 1 and 2 the petitioner has not denied the payment of price of the land. D.W.1. Munir Ahmad Junior Clerk of DCO Office Khushab deposed that in the year, 1959 the disputed land was allotted to the respondent under Grow More Food Scheme.
The father of the respondent was also allotted some land which he transferred in the name of his wife and son. However, he deposed that at the time of allotment the petitioner was minor. The photocopy of the I.D. Card was placed on record which is Mark-A. The petitioner tried to establish from the photocopy of this I.D. Card that the respondent was minor at the time of allotment but surprisingly the photocopy of the I.D. Card was not put to the respondent during the cross- examination. The learned appeal Court after examining the photocopy of the I.D. Card observed that Mark-A itself show that appellant was of 22 years and the date of birth of the respondent is not mentioned in the I.D. Card. The learned appeal Court further held that there is no provision in the Notification Nos.6539/56/57/579-C(G), dated 23-11-1956 that land for Grow More Food could not allotted to a minor.
12. Copy of Khasra Girdawri shows the continuous possession of the respondent. The record shows that father of the respondent transferred his separate land to respondent and his wife on 1-10-1970, whereas the suit-land was allotted to respondent in the year, 1959-60 and as such the learned appeal Court came to the conclusion that defendants have failed to establish on record that the respondent was minor at the time of allotment. The petitioner/defendants themselves have admitted that the land was allotted to the respondent who paid the price of the land. From the above said facts, in my opinion the respondent has failed to prove that at the time of allotment of land the respondent/plaintiff was minor. The respondent is in continuous possession of the suit- land from the date of allotment. He has paid the entire price of land as demanded by the defendants/petitioner and as such there is no complaint against him for violation of terms of allotment and the learned appeal Court has rightly set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court. The present Revision is without force and is dismissed without any orders of costs.