1. REHMAT HUSSAIN JAFFERI, J.--- The present revision application is directed against the judgment dated 9.6.2001 and decree dated 12.6.2001 passed by the learned District judge Jacobabad in Civil Appeal No. 14 of 2000 by which the learned judge had maintained the judgment and decree dated 10.5.2000 and 13.5.2000 passed by the learned 1st: Senior Civil Judge, Jacobabad in F.C. Suit No.25 of 1999 Shafi Muhammad v. Province of Sindh and otners who dismissed the suit of the applicant.
2. The facts giving rise to the present revision application are that the applicant had filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction alleging that his property was settled on water course 6-AR Ex: Eidan minor and the land of respondent No.6 was settled on water course 4-L Ex: Seer Wah and 6-R Ex: Eiden Wah. It is alleged that one Dhani Bux the previous owner of Ghanhwar Khan Jamil on the statement dated 29.3.1975 of Ganhwar Khan changed the land of respondent No.6 from his water course to the water course 6-AR Ex: Eidan wah on which the land of applicant was settled. It is alleged that he said statement of Ghanhwar Khan was made after he had sold the property, therefore, he was not competent to do so. The matter was referred to Irrigation Department where the applicant filed objections, but the same were rejected up to the level of Commissioner and then he filed the suit for declaration that the consent statement of Ganhwar Khan dated 29.3.1975 was obtained by fraud and false and that the land of respondent No.6 can not be transferred on the water course of the applicant and for issuing permanent injunction.
3. The respondent NO.6 filed the written statement in which he took the plea that the consent statement was made on 21.3.1975 when Ganhwar Khan was owner of the property and the applicant become owner on 28.3.1975 who challenged the transfer of the land and the statement after 15 years. He also took the plea that order of government functionaries have not been challenged and that the suit is time barred--- Out of the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court framed seven issues.
4. On the application of respondent No.6, issue No.5 whether the suit is time barred? Was ordered to be decided first. On the said issue, the parties did not lead any evidence but arguments were advanced. After hearing the arguments the Trial Court formed opinion that the suit was time barred, hence the suit of the applicant was dismissed. The applicant filed the appeal before the District Court which met with the same fate under the impugned judgment. The applicant was dissatisfied with the said judgment and decree; therefore, he has preferred the present revision application.
5. The learned advocate for the applicant has stated that the suit is within time as he has challenged the statement of Ganhwar Khan which was obtained on 29.3.1975, and not the orders of the government functionaries. He has further stated that the lower appellate Court had misconstrued the law by holding that the suit cf the applicant was time barred.
6. On the other hand learned advocate for the respondent No.6 has argued that the applicant has not challenged the orders of government functionaries as the suit should have been filed within one year after passing of the order, but the present suit has been filed after 15 years of the passing of the said order. He has further stated the even otherwise the suit is barred under section 91 (2)
7. (i.e) of Sindh Irrigation Act, 1879: The learned Addl. A.G has also supported the impugned judgment by stating that the suit is hopelessly time barred for the reason that the alleged statement has been challenged after 15 years when the applicant knew about the said statement as he had filed objections before the irrigation authorities s required under Sindh Irrigation Act and the issue was contested by the applicant up to the highest level, but his objections were over ruled by passing appropriate orders, which have not been challenged in suit.
8. From the above position, it is clear that the applicant was in the knowledge of the alleged statement, which he had challenged before the proper forum by raising objections, but the same were over ruled and the land on water course was transferred and settled on water course on which the land of applicant was settled under the orders of competent authorities. Until and unless those orders are not set aside, mere declaration sought by the applicant will not be effective declaration. The orders of the government functionaries have not been challenged by the appellants for the simple reason that the orders are required to be challenged within a period of one year as required under Article 14 of the Limitation Act. In view of sections 91, 92 and 93 of Sindh Irrigation Act the jurisdiction of Civil Court is also barred in respect of orders passed by the Commissioner under Sindh Irrigation Act. Finding all these hurdles in his way, the applicant took the case to the Court by challenging the statement of Ganhwar Khan after 15 years, which he had contested before the competent forum. The learned advocate for the applicant has failed to quote a provision of limitation, under which the suit can be filed after 15 years in the circumstances of the present.
9. The learned lower Courts have considered the point of limitation properly and have arrived at proper conclusion. There are concurrent findings of the lower Courts which have been given after considering the facts and law applicable in the case, therefore there is no justification for interference with the said finding. Consequently, the revision application is dismissed.
10. Above are the reasons of my short order dated 29.1.2003 Civil .