' AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN, J.--- Through this civil revision the petitioner has challenged the judgment and decree dated 20-3-1995 whereby an appeal filed by the rival claimant Allah Ditta caste Joya Meroka was allowed and the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court decreeing the suit on 28-1-1988 was set aside. Resultantly, the suit was dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner Allah Ditta caste Joya Ranoka filed a declaratory suit about the suit property fully described in the head note of the plaint and challenged the orders dated 30-8-1982, 1-2-1983 and 25-8-1983 passed by the Assistant Collector, Additional Commissioner and Member Board of Revenue respectively whereby the suit property was cancelled from the name of the plaintiff/petitioner and prayed that he is entitled to proprietary right's. The defendants/respondents filed written statement and contested the suit One Allah Ditta son of Waryam caste. Joya Meroka also filed suit for declaration. The learned trial Court after filing of written statement framed various issues and invited the parties to produce their respective evidence. Both the parties produced their respective evidence. The learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 28-1-1988 decreed the suit of the petitioner and suit filed by Allah Ditta caste Joya Meroka was dismissed. Province of Punjab filed an appeal against the decree in favour of the petitioner and the rival plaintiff filed two appeals, one against the decree in favour of the petitioner and the other against the judgment and decree of dismissal of his suit. The appeals were decided by the learned Additional District Judge, Bahawalnagar on 1-4-1989 and cases of both the rival claimants i,e, petitioner and others were sent before District Collector with the direction to re- decide their entitlement with regard to the land. Against this judgment and decree, the petitioner and his rival claimant filed revision petitions before this Court. The revision petition filed by Allah Ditta Ranoka (petitioner) was Civil 'Revision No,300-D-1989, whereas rival claimant Allah Ditta Meroka filed Civil Revision No,301-D-1989. Both the revision petitions were allowed by this Court vide judgment and decree dated 25-10-1994 and the-appeals were remanded to the District Judge to decide the appeals on merits. Now the situation arises that Appeal No,139 of 1994 was against the dismissal of the suit of rival claimant Allah Ditta Meroka and Appeal No,140 of 1994 was against the decree granted in favour of the petitioner. The appeal filed by the rival claimant against his dismissal decree i,e, Appeal No,139 of 1994 was dismissed and Appeal No,140 of 1994 against the decree in favour of the petitioner was allowed. The petitioner filed civil revision, in hand i,e, Civil Revision No,126-D-1995 against the judgment and decree passed 'by the first appellate court in Civil Appeal No,140 of 1994. The appeal of rival claimant was allowed and judgment and decree passed in favour of the petitioner dated 28-1-1988 was set aside.
3. Rival plaintiff Allah Ditta claimant filed Civil Revision No,324 of 1995 against the judgment and decree passed in Civil Appeal No,139 of 1994, whereby his appeal was also dismissed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court whereby his suit was dismissed. Civil Revision No,324 was dismissed for non-prosecution on 17-6-2003. An application was filed in June, 2011 for restoration of said civil revision, the same was also dismissed on 27-6-2011. Now the factual position is that Province of Punjab has not challenged the decree in favour of the petitioner granted by the trial Court on,28-1-1988. After the remand by this Court through Civil Revision No,300-D-89 and C.R.No,301-D-89 and after the dismissal of Civil Revision No,324 of 1995 there is no rival claimant now to challenge the decree granted by the trial Court in favour of the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the first appellate court fell in error while accepting Appeal No,140 of 1994 against the judgment and decree in favour of the appellant because the appeal filed by the rival claimant No,139 of 1994 was dismissed. Then the rival claimant was having no locus standi to challenge the judgment and decree in favour of the plaintiff granted by the learned trial Court, the Appeal No,140 of 94 filed by him against the judgment and decree should have been dismissed by the first appellate court. On merits learned counsel for the petitioner states that resumption order was passed by the Assistant Collector who was not having the powers of Collector. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that only Collector is competent to pass the resumption order and that too after observing the conditions mentioned in section 24 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912. Further learned counsel states that the reports of the revenue staff are in favour of the petitioner that he has deposited whole of the requisite amount and the suit land is self-cultivated by the petitioner. Further that the petitioner has made the land cultivable.
5. On the other hand, learned A.A.-G. Assisted by the learned counsel for rival claimant states that the orders passed by the Colony Authority cannot be challenged in the civil court. Further that the petitioner has not made the land cultivable and he has not fulfilled the conditions.
6. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the material available on record.
7. The legal position as argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner has some weight because decree for declaration was granted by the learned trial Court in favour of the petitioner and after the remand the appeal of Province of Punjab was not before the first appellate Court, One of the appeal filed by the rival claimant against the dismissal of suit was dismissed, therefore, he was not having any locus standi to challenge the decree in favour of the petitioner and the learned first appellate Court wrongly accepted his appeal and set aside the judgment and decree passed in favour of the petitioner. Further I have observed that the legal objection of the learned counsel for the petitioner is correct that Assistant Commissioner is not a Collector as defined in section 3 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 or provisions of West Pakistan Lands Revenue Act, 1967, the objection of the learned A.A.-G. That Civil Court has no jurisdiction under section 36 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912. I am clear in my mind that clause ousting the jurisdiction of civil court is only available when the orders passed by the authority under which there is ousting clause of jurisdiction has been passed with jurisdiction conferred upon the authority in the same statute. As I have observed that the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner was without jurisdiction then this ousting clause cannot be enforced. Even otherwise, it is clear that the civil court is court of plenary and ultimate jurisdiction, therefore, in the above circumstances; I hold that the civil court was having the jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit.
' In the light of what has been discussed above, I accept this civil revision with costs and set aside the judgment and decree dated 20-3-1995 passed by the first appellate court and restore that of the trial Court dated 28-1-1988.