KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN, J.-The land in dispute was allotted by the Provincial Government to Bahadur predecessor of defendants; respondents 1 to 3 as occupancy tenants who sold the same in favour of respondents 4 to 5 after obtaining sanction from the Collector under section 19 of the Colonization of ;government Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912). The plaintiffs/ petitioners for a suit for a declaration that they themselves are the occupancy tenants of the land and consequently the sale thereof by defendants/ respondents I to 3 in favour of respondents 4 and 5 was illegal. The basis for claiming, the aforesaid declaration was that even though Bahadur the predecessor of defendants I to 3 was the original grantee but the petitioners had been holding adversely against him/them, right from the beginning of the grant to Bahadur in year 1925 and bad as such become occupancy tenants under the Government by prescription, The suit was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge on 7-2-1960,
2. The petitioners filed an appeal which also met the same fate and was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge on 14-3-1966.
3. A second appeal being R. S. A. 349/66 filed by the petitioners in the High Court was also dismissed on 30-5-1978.
4. The petitioners have come up in a petition for special leave to appeal against the aforesaid to this Court.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the Courts below were wrong .In holding that their suit, was not maintainable and was out--side the jurisdiction of a civil Court, in view of section 36 of the Act which was headed as, "Jurisdiction of civil Court barred as regards matters arising under the Act" and which stated that "A civil Court shall not have jurisdic--tion in any matter of which the Collector is empowered by this Act to dispose and shall not take cognizance of the matter in which the (Provincial Government), (Board of Revenue) or Collector or any other Revenue Officer exercises any power vested in it or in him by or under this Act". Learned counsel submitted that the petitioners were not claiming the status of Government tenants by adverse possession but they claimed only those limited rights by adverse possession which the original grantee Bahadur had in this land. The contention has no merit. In paragraph 1 of the present petition, the petitioners have stated as follows :- .
"The tenancy rights were purchased by Bahadur for a consideration of Rs. 10,927 out of which the first instalment paid was Rs. 1,093. This amount was paid by the ancestors of the present petitioners on the basis of an agreement entered into between the ancestors of the petitioners and Bahadur.
According to that agreement, Bahadur had forgone all his rights in favour of the ancestors of the petitioners. On the basis of that agreement, the petitioners got into the possession of the land as Governments in their own rights."
6. Paragraph 2 of the petition is to the following effect "That later on, the rest of fires do not be paid and the whole of the land confiscated by the Government but in a second thought the Government of the Punjab was pleased to confirm occupancy tenancy rights over Bahadur son of Bahawal as he was the recorded tenant with the Government. Throughout this period, the tenancy rights remained recorded in the name of Bahadur and after a him in the names of his sons i.e., respondents Nos. 1 to 3. The petitioners' ancestors and after them the petitioners themselves have remained in actual possession of the., land on a claim of being Government tenants."
7.To explain the history of some previous litigation between the parties a reproduction of paragraphs 3 and 5 of the present petition is necessary. They read as follows :- "That the petitioners asked for a declaration that the original, purchaserBahadur was benamidar for the petitioners' ancestors basing Weir claim on agreement mentioned above with Bahadur from the civil Courts at Shikhupura district. The suit was decreed by the Aearned trial Court on 5th of December, 193J. The appeal filed by the diner party was dismissed by th--- learned District .Fudge, Sheikhupnra vide his order dated 3rd of August, 1940, but the petitioners failed finally before the Honourable High Court vide its judgment dated 13th of June, 1941. This suit was dismissed by the Court on the ground that alleged agreement was void under section 1,9 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act of 1912.
Paragraph 5. That on 15th of February, 1.963, the petitioners instituted a suit for declaration in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Sheikhupura. In that very suit the declaration of the nature that the petitioners are the occupancy tenants on the basis of adverse posses--sion of the suit land as against the recorded tenants for at least 38 years or so. Another ground for this declaration was that the petitioners ancestors were the beneficial purchasers of the tenancy rights and Bahadur was merely a benamidar. Government of the Punjab was made defendant No. 6 and no relief was claimed against that."
8. From the aforesaid pleadings it is quite clear that the petitioner want to claim a declaration with regard to their status as occupancy tenants, under the Government by adverse possession. It is well settledthat such a status cannot be claimed by adverse possession (against the Government) and if the High Court held the suit as incompetcnt for this reasonits order cannot be taken exception to.
9. When confronted with the above situation the learned counsel submitted that actually the petitioners claim to be owners in possession of that limited right of occupancy which the original grantee Bahadur had in the suit land and if the pleadings of the plaintiffs as made in the petition for leave to appeal purport to claim something different the sameshould be ignored and the relief now as explained by him should be granted to his clients. We have attended to this plea but are unable to find any merit therein. If the previous history of the case is kept is view then it will be evident that as a matter of fact the relief claimed in present suit is the same which was rejected in the earlier round of litigation about this very land by the High Court in year 1941. Merely because now the. Petitioners have put it differently does not change the complexion of the case and so long as the petitioners want the status of being Government occupancy tenants the same cannot be granted to them by the civil Court in view of the provisions of section 36 quoted above. At this juncture learned counsel submitted that his clients may be trespassers vis-a-vis the Government but vis-a-vis the successors-in-interest of Bahadur they have prescribed their possession and relief to that effect could be granted to them by a civil Court. However, we are of the opinion that on the peculiar facts and in the special circumstances of this case even such a relief in view of the past history above-mentioned could not be competently given by a civil Court and their suit in this respect was even otherwise not maintainable. It appears that having lost the case earlier from the High Court on as far as back as 13-6-1941, the petitioners have again restarted and reopened the same subject-matter in a different garb. Secondly the adverse possession is pleaded from. The very date of grant viz. 19-12-1925, continuity whereof was destroyed by the failure of the plaintiffs in their earlier suit, thirdly the learned counsel informed us that as a matter of fact even ejectment order had been passed by the relevant revenue authorities against his clients and if that is so then it completely clinches the matter of adverse possession and any attempt to avoid the previous judgment of the High Court of year 1941 and consequent eviction order passed by the authorities concerned against the petitioners cannot be avoided by the petitioners by a circuitous litigation of the present kind. Looked at from whatever angle we are of the opinion that the petitioners have not been able to prove any case in law, equity or on facts, and nor have they been able to convince us regarding the maintainability of such a suit in a civil Court where their effort was to become occupany tenants under the Government either by pleading that they were the real grantees or have become so or acquired this status by adverse possession.
9. The result is that this petition has no merit and is dismissed.