' MUHAMMAD ASHRAF BHATTI, J.-This civil revision is directed against, the concurrent findings of both the learned courts below whereby the suit for declaration, filed by the petitioners has been dismissed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nankana by judgment and decree dated 4-9-2008 and the same was upheld by the learned Additional District Judge by judgment and decree dated 14-1-2009.
2. Brief facts of the case are that suit land, fully described in the head note of the plaint, originally barren when allotted to their father/predecessor-in-interest, namely, Sultan under "Ghair Dakheel Kar Scheme" in the year 1968, was brought into cultivation after incurring huge expenses on its improvement, including, installation of a tubewell, and since then, they are enjoying, possession of the same. In the year 1979, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners filed an application before the then District Collector, Sheikhupura for obtaining, proprietary rights, which is allegedly still pending, disposal before the respondent Authorities and now after the death of their father the respondent Authorities wanted to cancel the said allotment which, prompted the petitioners to file a suit for declaration with, permanent injunction in the court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Nankana.
The respondents contested this suit by filing, their written statement with the objection that since the suit land was owned by the Provincial Government, hence, the suit was not maintainable as the civil court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the same. Out of the pleadings of the parties the learned civil court framed necessary issues. Both the parties led their oral as well as documentary evidence. The learned trial court decreed the suit in favour of the respondents and against the petitioners by judgment dated 4-9-2008 which was appealed against before the learned Additional District Judge but met with the same fate vide judgment dated 14-1-2009. Hence, this civil revision.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has been heard at length and available record perused.
4. At the outset it may be mentioned that firstly, petitioners' father/predecessor- in-interest, namely, Sultan took possession of this land in the year 1968 and after his death they stepped into his shoes. Learned counsel for the petitioners referred to Challan Payment Receipt of Rs,698 as Exh.PI, copies of Jamabandi for the years 1970-71, 1974-75 and 1998-99 as Exh.P2 to Exh,P4 respectively along with copies of Khasra Girdawari as Exh.PS and Exh.P6, to assert that since firstly the predecessor- in-interest of the petitioners and then the petitioners themselves became the allottee "Ghair Dakheel Kar" of the disputed land the respondent Authorities could not eject them from the said land nor interfere with their possession in any manner. Hence, according, to them, both the courts below erred in law to declare them illegal occupants of the said-land.
5. Careful perusal of the documents referred to above reveals that according to the record of rights for the year 1970-71, 1974-75, 1998-99 and 2002-2003 Sultan, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners was shown to be in possession of this land under 5 years lease but there is nothing on record as to when said Sultan died or as to whether or not after the year 2003 or even before that, the said lease was ever renewed by the Provincial Government/granted afresh in petitioners' favour. It appears that not only their predecessor-in-interest but petitioners themselves too continued with the possession of this land without any lawful authority after the lapse of initial period of lease and as such, both the learned courts below rightly observed that the petitioners were in continuous illegal possession of the land under reference.
6. It is also noticeable that the prayer sought for through the suit for declaration was not tenable.
Indeed, a suit for declaration was not maintainable when no vested right or title, denial of which could have given them a cause of action, existed in favour of the petitioners, whereas, to the contrary, they are simply in illegal possession of the suit land and have admittedly applied under the relevant law/rules governed by the Board of Revenue for grant of its proprietary rights and this matter is still undecided.
7. Therefore, in the light of above, the only course left for them was to approach the Revenue Authorities, instead of filing a suit in a court, which lacked jurisdiction. It may also be observed that although question of jurisdiction was not raised before the learned Additional District Judge but mere absence of objection in respect of jurisdiction or consent of parties cannot confer jurisdiction upon a court to decide the matter on merits. Reliance is placed on Islamic Republic of Pakistan v.
Messrs Conforce Limited and others (2001 CLC 1741) and Haji Muhammad Asghar v. Malik Shah Muhammad Awan (PLD 1986 SC 542). Therefore, the issue pertaining to jurisdiction was illegally decided by the learned appellate court which is apparent on the face of record nor reference was made to any law whereunder the suit for declaration could proceed in a matter which squarely fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the revenue hierarchy before whom the petitioners are already applicants to seek proprietary rights of the said land.
8. So, therefore, keeping in view the above peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and the concurrent findings of the courts below, no case is made out to interfere in the impugned judgments in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. Resultantly, this revision, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed in limine. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.