' KH. IMTIAZ AHMAD, J.---Through the present civil revision the order of the learned ADJ dated 9-12- 2006 has been challenged whereby the learned ADJ Multan after accepting the appeal remanded the case back for its decision on merits.
2. The relevant facts for the disposal of this civil revision are that respondents herein filed a suit on 16-9-2005 challenging the consolidation proceedings and the confirmation vide order dated 27- 12-1993 passed by the Consolidation Officer, Multan, order dated 10-5-2001 passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Consolidation), Multan, the order dated 18-3-2004 passed by the Executive District Officer (Revenue), Multan and the order dated 10-3-2005 passed by the learned Member Board of Revenue (consolidation). The permanent injunction was also sought for against the private respondents Nos. 6 to 45 restraining them to claim the ownership of the land in dispute.
In the said suit, the claim of the plaintiffs was that the plaintiffs were owners in possession of the land in dispute fully mentioned in the head note of the plaint, which' through the consolidation proceedings came into the share of the defendants though the land which came into the share of the plaintiffs was not of the same value and the plaintiffs had also installed a tubewell in the said land and so the order of confirmation of consolidation dated 27-12-1993 passed by the Consolidation Officer was illegal. The plaintiffs preferred appeal before the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Consolidation) which was also dismissed on 10-5-2001, which order was also illegal and thereafter, the plaintiffs filed revision petition before the Executive District Officer (Revenue), Multan, which was dismissed on 18-3-2004 and the said order was also illegal and lastly, the plaintiffs filed revision petition before the learned Member Board of Revenue (Consolidation), Punjab Lahore, which was also dismissed on 10-3-2005 and the said order was also illegal. The defendants made the appearance and moved a petition under order VII Rule 11, C.P.C. For the rejection of the plaint on the grounds that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction under section 26 of the West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960. The learned trial Court after hearing the arguments vide order dated 1-1-2006 accepted the petition and resultantly rejected the plaint. The plaintiffs feeling aggrieved preferred an appeal, which came up for hearing before the learned ADJ, Multan who vide the impugned order dated 9-12-2006 accepted the appeal and remanded the case back to the learned trial Court for its decision on merits. The facts which the learned appellate court took into consideration were that the learned trial court had erred in law since the matter before him was to the extent of the fact that the land allocated to the plaintiffs was lesser in value than the land which they were already holding and they had also installed a tubewell and planted a garden thereon. To the extent of jurisdiction of the civil Court even if barred and conferred upon special tribunals, even then the civil Court had the ultimate jurisdiction to examine acts of such forums to see if such were in accordance with law. In this behalf the reliance was placed on (1974 SCMR 356) and PLD 1983 Lah.
258. Feeling aggrieved, the present revision petition has been filed by the defendants.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that under section 26 of the West Pakistan.
Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960, the civil Court had no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter and in this behalf, he placed reliance on the cases of Arbab Jehangir Khan and others v.
Inayatullah. Khan and others (2006 SCMR 1692), Mst. Roshan Bibi v. Member Board of Revenue (Consolidation), Lahore and 2 others (1994 MLD 1513), Evacuee Trust Property Board and others v.
Mst. Sakina Bibi and others (2007 SCMR 262), Ahmad and others v. Karam Hussain and another (1986 SCMR 1384), Muhammad Ajmal and others v. Province of Punjab and others (2008 SCMR 1431) and Muhammad Yaseen v. Province of Punjab and others (2009 SCMR 753).
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents contended that the civil Court had the ultimate jurisdiction to see whether the tribunal had acted in accordance with law or not and so the learned trial Court was not justified to reject the plaint summarily without recording the evidence, since the matter requires factual inquiry. In his behalf, he placed reliance on the cases of Hamid Husain v. Government of West Pakistan and others (1974 SCMR 356), Zaheer Ahmad and 6 others v. Allah Ditta and 15 others (PLD 1983 Lahore 256) and Muhammad and 19 others v.
Muhammad Hayat and 8 others (2006 CLC 907).
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. As has been mentioned above that in the suit, two grounds were taken by the plaintiffs to challenge the consolidation proceedings. The first was that the land in their possession was of more value than the land which came into their share through the consolidation proceedings and the other was that they had installed tubewell and garden in the land in dispute. To this extent, the plaintiffs had taken all the said pleas, in appeals and revisions up to the Board of Revenue but they failed. Section 26 of the West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960 reads as under:-- - "
26. 'Jurisdiction of Civil Courts barred as regards matter arising under this Ordinance. ---No Civil Court shall entertain any suit or application to obtain a decision or order in respect of any matter which Government or the Board of Revenue or any officer is by this Ordinance, empowered to determine, decide or dispose of."
' The perusal of the above-said section clearly bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in consolidation proceedings. There is no denial of the fact that the civil Court had the ultimate jurisdiction to see if the fraud has been committed or the question of title is involved. In the present case, it is to be seen that question of title is not involved. The only controversy is that according to the plaintiffs the land which was in their possession was of more value than the land they obtained in the consolidation proceedings and for that purpose, they had availed all the forums available to them but they failed to succeed.
7. In the case of Nawab v. Ghulab and 4 others (2004 SCMR 1833), the matter was taken into consideration with regard to the bar of jurisdiction of the civil Court in consolidation proceedings. In the said case, the plaintiffs being dissatisfied with the order of the Addl. Commissioner (Consolidation) instead of invoking the jurisdiction of Board of Revenue, in the matter arising out of consolidation proceedings filed civil Suit. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court being barred under section 26 of the West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960. In appeal, the judgment of the trial Court was maintained and the High Court also maintained the judgment and so the matter went to the august Supreme Court. Before the Supreme Court, in order to invoke the jurisdiction of civil Court, the plea was raised that the suit land was different from the one which was subject-matter of the consolidation proceedings. It was in this background that the august Supreme Court observed as under:-- "Plaintiff failed to show any evidence on record in support of the contention that the dispute between the parties arising out of consolidation, related to a different land---Plaintiff had neither taken such plea before subordinate Courts and High Court at any stage, nor he was able to show from record that the dispute between the parties in the Civil suit pertained to a land which was not subject matter of litigation between term before the Revenue Authorities---High Court had rightly held that due to the bar of jurisdiction contained in Section 26 of the West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960, the civil suit was not maintainable---judgment of High Court being not suffering from any illegality, did not call for interference of Supreme Court---Leave to appeal was refused."
' It is to be seen that in the present case, there is no such dispute between the parties that the land in dispute was not the subject of the consolidation proceedings, so in view of the above mentioned case-law, it stands established that in the present case, the civil Court had no jurisdiction due to the bar of Section 26 of the Ordinance, 1960.
8. In the case of Farman Ali and 7 others v. Khani Aman and 400 others (PLD 2005 Peshawar 186), - the same preposition was discussed. In the said case, the parties claimed to be the co-owners of the land falling in two villages. The parties made resolution during consolidation proceedings agreeing thereby to mutually transfer their lands to each other in two villages. The said resolution was not given effect in the consolidation proceedings and so the petitioner claimed title of disputed land on the basis of said resolution. It is in this background that it was held as under:- "Giving effect or refusing to give effect to such resolution had amounted to adjustment or refusal to adjust land in consolidation proceedings---Such dispute would fall exclusively within jurisdiction of Consolidation Authorities under Section 10 of the West Pakistan,Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960-- Civil Court -would have no jurisdiction to entertain any claim with respect to such dispute."
9. In a resent judgment captioned as Muhammad Yaseen v. Province of Punjab and others (2009 SCMR 753), the august Supreme Court had dealt with this point. The facts of the said case was that the suit for declaration was filed challenging the orders of Consolidation Officers including the Board of Revenue as is the position in the present case, the August Supreme Court observed as under:- "Adjustment of lands and share distribution in consolidation operation fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Consolidation Authorities and Civil Court could not sit in appeal on them---Even if not expressly ousted, the juridiction of the civil court was barred impliedly---Jurisdiction of civil Court was barred under section 26 of West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960, even if such allegations were made in a suit pleading that decision had been obtained by fraud and misrepresentation."
' The above said observation of the august Supreme Court clearly implies that when the matter is within the jurisdiction of Consolidation Authorities, the jurisdiction of the civil Court is barred.
10. As has been mentioned above that the grounds taken by the plaintiffs were that they were given land which was less in value than the land they owned and that they had installed tubewell and garden. Almost on the similar grounds, there is yet another case decided by the August Supreme Court captioned as Muhammad Ajmal and others v. Province of Punjab and others (2008 SCMR 1431). In the said case, the consolidation scheme approved by the Revenue Authorities was assailed by the plaintiff in civil suit which was dismissed by the trial Court as being barred under section 26 of West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960. The appeal was preferred and the appellate Court converted the dismissal of the suit into rejection of plaint. The High Court also dismissed the petition and so the matter went to the August Supreme Court. It was observed by the august Supreme Court as under:-- "Contention of the plaintiff in the Constitutional petition was on merits as to Vandas of land, quality of land, classification of land and also the plea that the plaintiff was given less land than his entitlement whereas the defendants were given more than their entitlement were taken into consideration and the same held to be devoid of any force-All the pleas raised by the plaintiff fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the revenue consolidation authorities for decision in proceedings of consolidation of holdings---Jurisdiction of civil Court was rightly held to be barred under section 26 of West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960---Leave to appeal was refused."
' The facts of present case are exactly at par with the above-mentioned case and thus there remains no ambiguity that in the present case, the jurisdiction of civil Court was barred under section 26 of West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960. The references may also be made to the cases reported in 1994 MLD 1513, 2007 SCMR 262 and 1986 SCMR 1384.
11. Coming to the case-law cited by the learned counsel for the respondents, suffice it would be to say, that in the case of Zaheer Ahmad and 6 others v. Allah Ditta and 15 others (PLD 1983 Lahore 256), it was held by the High Court that where the fraud and misrepresentation has been committed, the Civil Court had the jurisdiction to inquire into the question. However, the facts of the present case are quite distinguishable. The case of Hamid Hussain v. Government of West Pakistan and others (1974 SCMR 356), in fact relates to the rehabilitation settlement scheme and thus the facts of the said cases are quite distinguishable though the principle laid down in the said case is that where the jurisdiction of civil Court is barred and conferred upon the special tribunal even then the civil Court being courts of ultimate jurisdiction have the jurisdiction to examine acts of such forums to see if such are in accordance with law, or illegal, or even mala fide. In a case of Muhammad and 19 others v. Muhammad Hayat and 8 others (2006 CLC 907), it was only observed that when the question of title is involved, then the civil Court had the jurisdiction. Thus the case- law cited by the learned counsel for the respondents does not advance the case of the respondents.
12. In view of what has been said above and in the light of the principle laid down by the august Supreme Court as mentioned above, there remains no ambiguity that in the present case, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was barred under section 26 of West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960 and the learned appellate Court had committed illegality by remanding the case back to the learned D trial Court for its decision on merits. Resultantly, this civil revision succeeds. The impugned judgment of the learned ADJ, Multan dated 9-12-2006 is set aside and that of the learned Civil Judge dated 2-1-2006 stands resorted. The parties are left to bear their own costs.
Revision .