CH. MUHAMMAD TARIQ, J.---Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No,1 filed a declaratory suit claiming himself to be owner in possession of the suit-land fully described in the head note of the plaint, challenging order dated 31-7-1993 passed by learned Member, Board of Revenue/ defendant No,2 being illegal, without lawful authority, based on mala fide and unheard, Prayer for permanent injunction has also been made. It is alleged in the plaint that Muhammad Nawaz defendant No,3/respondent No,2 had taken the possession of agricultural land in Tehsil Toba Tek Singh on lease under Grow More Food Scheme and made that land cultivable in the year, 1962- 1963. Government of Punjab under general order cancelled all the allotments, which were made under Grow More Food Scheme and those lands were included in the schedule. In the year, 1972, the Government restored the previous scheme and had given the alternate land to those allottee whose land fell within the prohibitory zone. Defendant No,3 applied for the alternate land in the year, 1973 before District Collector/Colony Assistant which was processed and ultimately vide order dated 25-5-1990 suit-land was allotted to defendant No,3 as alternate land under Grow More Food Scheme. Suit-land was situated outside the prohibitory zone and defendant No,3 had paid all the dues regarding his allotment. Mutation No,777 dated 8-8-1990 was also sanctioned in favour of defendant No,3. It is further alleged that defendant No,4/ respondent No,3 Fateh Muhammad son of Qaloo purchased the suit-land from defendant No,3 vide Mutation No,778 dated 23-8-1990 and also obtained its possession. Muhammad Irshad Kausar defendant No . 5/respondentNo,4 subsequently purchased the suit-land from Fateh Muhammad son of Qaloo vide Mutation No,837 dated 23-2-1992 and defendant No,5 has also obtained the possession of suit-land under sale. It is also alleged that petitioner/plaintiff purchased the suit-land from respondent No,4 vide Mutation No,847 dated 18-8-1992 after paying a sum of Rs.4,75,000 to respondent No,4 and obtained its possession. The petitioner/ plaintiff has alleged that there was no dispute with regard to suit-land at the time of purchase of suit-land by the plaintiff and plaintiff had in fact purchased the suit-land after satisfying himself, that defendant No,5/respondent No,4 was the lawful owner of suit-land. It is also alleged that the plaintiff has purchased the suit-land in good faith after paying the market value of the suit-land to defendant No,5/respondent No,4 and had also incurred a sum of Rs.2,15,236 for improvement. It is alleged that defendant No,2 learned Member, Board of Revenue has held inquiry with regard to the suit-land illegally, ex parte and without jurisdiction in order to cause damage to the petitioner/plaintiff. The petitioner has further alleged that in fact defendant No,3/respondent No,2 has connived with defendant No,2/petitioner in order to get cancelled allotment with mala fide 'intention. Defendants Nos.1 and 2/petitioner have filed contesting writttn statement wherein three preliminary objections regarding bar of jurisdiction of B civil court under section 36 of the Colony Act, 1912 and lack of locus standi to the respondent No,1/plaintiff have been taken. On facts, it is averred that suit-land was allotted to defendant No,3 under Grow More Food Scheme which was later on cancelled vide general order of the Government. In 1971, Government decided to give alternate land to such allottees who submitted applications and last date for such applications was 30-6-1983. Defendant No,3/respondent No,2 had not submitted application till said date. However, in the year, 1986 in connivance with Revenue staff ante-dated application was submitted and forged signature of Assistant Commissioner/Collector were procured and in fact fake reports were procured from revenue staff for the allotment of suit-land. The matter came before Colony auditor Board of Revenue, Punjab who conducted regular inquiry, therefore, under section 30(2) of the Colonization Act, 1912 after summoning defendant No,3 and recording statement of defendant No,3, suit-land was resumed. It is further averred that in fact defendant No,3 was minor, of the age of five years in the year, 1958 who was not eligible for the allotment of land as he was not in cultivating possession of the land and thumb impression affixed on the application dated 27-3-1973 and 29-5-1990 were also forged therefore, learned Member, Board of Revenue had rightly come to this conclusion that their allotment had been procured through deceitful manner. It is further averred that all the proceedings of inquiry conducted by learned Member, Board of Revenue were in accordance with law. In fact, impugned order was passed after hearing defendant No,3/respondent No,2 who was most relevant persons to be heard. Respondent No,2 has filed separate written statement wherein he has admitted that he was allotted land under Grow More Food Scheme however, same was resumed as he was minor. It is further averred that respondent No,3 has fraudulently and deceitful manner obtained registered sale-deed in his favour from him without paying a single penny to defendant No,3. Defendants Nos.4 and 5 have submitted contesting written statement. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed. Issues:--
(1) Whether this court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the suit? OPD.
(2) Whether the plaintiff has got no cause of action for the filing of this suit? OPD.
(3) Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the disputed land and that impugned order dated 31-7-1993 passed by the Member, Board of Revenue, Lahore is illegal, void, un-warranted, inoperative against the rights of the plaintiff and as such liable to the set aside? OPP.
(4) Relief Both the parties adduced their oral as well as documentary evidence and on 25-10-2000, the learned Senior Civil Judge, Toba Tek Singh dismissed the suit of respondent No,1/plaintiff. Feeling aggrieved, respondent No,1 filed appeal which was accepted on 17-9-2001 by the learned Additional District Judge, Toba Tek Singh, who allowed the appeal and decreed the suit. Hence, this civil revision.
2. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record.
3. Issue No,1 pertains to the jurisdiction of civil court. The learned counsel for the petitioner emphasises more that section 36 of Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 put an express bar that civil court lacks jurisdiction to entertain matter under the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed on this score alone.
4. As regards, the question of jurisdiction, intention of legislature qua such bar seemed to be that officers working under the Act, should exercise their powers freely and should not be interrupted unnecessarily while administering colony land according to terms and conditions issued by competent authority. Ambit of jurisdiction of officers working under the Act was defined and they could not act beyond their scope of jurisdiction. Section 36 of Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 did not give unfettered powers to officers working under the Act. Bar under section 36 would be available only where authorities acted within four corners of their jurisdiction and not otherwise. Civil court would have jurisdiction to interfere where order passed under the Act, was void or without jurisdiction or mala fide or in excess of jurisdiction or otherwise not in accordance F with law or based on fraud. Relied upon the case of Province of Punjab through Collector District Khushab, Jauharabad and others v. Haji Yaqoob Khan and others 2007 SCM R 554.
So in the instant case, the civil Court has rightly exercised his jurisdiction.
5. The next important issue is Issue No,3, which is re-produced as under:-- ' Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the disputed land and that impugned order dated 31-7-1993 passed by the Member, Board of Revenue, Lahore is illegal, void, unwarranted, inoperative against the rights of the plaintiff and as such liable to be set aside? OPP.
6. Admittedly, the suit-land was situated outside the prohibitory zone of Municipal Committee.
Muhammad Nawazrespondent No,2 on 27-3-1973 submitted his application for the allotment of alternate land under Grow More Food Scheme. On the receipt of application, an inquiry Exh.P.W.2/2 was conducted by the field revenue staff whereby it was shown that 66% land has been developed and is under cultivation. Thereafter, the Collector sought a report from the revenue staff about the average price of suit-land and Tehsildar with the help of field staff calculated the average price per acre from 27-3-1972 to 26-3-1973. According to Exh.P.W.4/2 Rs.53,000 were paid as dues in connection with the allotment of proprietary rights of the suit-land. After the deposit of dues, Muhammad Nawaz-respondent No,2 submitted an application that conveyance deed be executed in his favour and ultimately after adopting due course of law, conveyance deed was executed in favour of Muhammad Nawaz-respondent No,2 which is Exh.P.W.812.
7. It is further pertinent to mention here that last date for the submission of application for the alternate land under Grow More Food Scheme was 31-7-1983 while Muhammad Nawaz-respondent submitted application on 22-7-1973 and suit-land was allotted to respondent No,2 on 17-6-1990.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further could not point out about the bar, that under law, land for Grow More Food Scheme could not be allotted to a minor. There is also no rebuttal that suit- land has not been developed or was not under cultivation. Admittedly, the suit-land was under cultivation by respondent No,2 through Shah Muhammad and Wali Muhammad etc. Copy of Khasra girdawari also supports this fact. In the circumstances, findings of Board of Revenue on the basis of report of Audit Officer dated 12-11-1977 is not sustainable in the eye of law.
9. The case of the petitioner rests on five points
(i) That the application, dated 27-3-1973 was not proper and case was re-opened after 17 years on forged application dated 29-5-1990. In this behalf, the petitioner failed to produce any cogent/ evidence that the application dated 27-3-1973 is forged one because basic concept of law is that whosoever level allegations of fraud or forgery, the onus to prove such fact lies on him. In the instant case, the petitioner failed to produce any supporting evidence that the said application is a forged document.
(ii) The next objection raised by the petitioner was that the suit-land was not cultivated rather it was cultivated by Shah Muhammad and Wali Muhammad etc. As per report submitted by Audit Officer dated 12-11-1977. There is sufficient evidence on record in rebuttal of this contention because according to the field staff report Exh.P.W.2/2, more than 66% of land had been developed which is under cultivation through Shah Muhammad and Wali Muhammad etc. This fact is further supported by the register Khasra Girdawari maintained by circle Patwari whereby the suit-land was shown as under cultivation. Simultaneously there is no bar in the relevant law that land could not be I cultivated through guardian or other sources.
(iii) As regards, thumb impression affixed on applications of Muhammad Nawaz respondent No,2 dated, 27-3-1973 and 29-5-1990 differ from each other. Again there is no evidence in support of this contention because no effort was made by the petitioner to send thumb impressions on both the applications to the Expert for comparison nor the petitioner produced any evidence in support of his contention so it is a mere allegation without corroboration which has no sanctity in the eye of law.
(iv) The next objection of the petitioners is that National Identity Card No,254-53-033885 of respondent No,2 reflects that the year of his birth was recorded as 1953. Therefore, his original lease in 1958 was void ab initio. Being minor he was not entitled for lease of land in 1958 and then alternate land subsequently. As already discussed above, the petitioners failed to produce any law/ restriction/bar that the land under the Colonization of Government Land (Punjab) Act, 1912, a minor cannot be allotted Government land and lastly objection No,5 that price of land at the rate of Rs.4240 per acre was fixed on the basis of application dated 27-3-1973 which was not proper. Huge financial loss was caused to Government exchequer. Perusal of record show that that the rate of suit-land per acre was fixed at Rs.4240 in the IK year, 1973, which was assessed by the Tehsildar with the aid of field staff and this rate was never challenged before. The petitioner could not produce any cogent evidence in support of his contention that in the year, 1973, the average rate of suit-land was higher than the assessed rate.
10. As a result of above discussion, respondent No,1 has fully proved that he is bona fide purchaser without notice, who purchased the suit-land bona fide against consideration thereafter further developed L the land. Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act protect the rights of bona fide purchaser without notice. Resultantly, civil revision fails, same is dismissed with no order as to costs.