' ABDUS SATTAR ASGHAR, J.---This civil revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated 3-3-1997 passed by learned Civil Judge Toba Tek Singh whereby respondent No, l's suit for declaration etc. Was decreed against the petitioners and others. It also assails Judgment and Decree dated 23-11-1999 passed by learned District Judge Toba Tek Singh whereby petitioners' appeal against the judgment and decree of learned Civil Judge was dismissed.
2. Succinctly the facts leading to this civil revision are that proprietary rights in the land measuring 99 kanals, 14 marlas situated in Chak No,390/J.B. Tehsil and District Toba Tek Singh (to be called hereinafter 'the land') were transferred to respondent No,2 Muhammad Iqbal under Grow More Food Scheme vide registered conveyance deed dated 12-11-1990. Mst. Nabeela Taj respondent No,1 obtained the said land from Muhammad Iqbal respondent No,2 vide exchange Mutation No,213 dated 19-6-1993. Pursuant to a Note dated 1-7-1992 submitted by Auditor Colonies Board of Revenue the learned Member (Colonies) took suo motu cognizance under section 30(2) of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 by issuing notices on 29-5-1993 and after providing opportunity of hearing to respondent No,2 Muhammad Iqbal vide order dated 24-8-1994 set aside the orders of the District Collector Toba Tek Singh regarding allotment of the land and conveyance deed issued in favour of respondent No,2 Muhammad Iqbal was ordered to be rescinded. It was further ordered that the land be immediately resumed in favour of the State. Mst.
Nabeela Taj respondent No,1 being aggrieved of the order dated 24-8-1994 passed by learned Member (Colonies) Board of Revenue assailed it through a suit for declaration etc. Against the Province of the Punjab and others before the learned Civil Judge Toba Tek Singh which was decreed vide Judgment and Decree dated 3-3-1997. Being aggrieved petitioners assailed the Judgment and Decree dated 3-3-1997 passed by learned trial. Court through an appeal before the learned District Judge Toba Tek Singh which was dismissed vide Judgment and Decree dated 23- 11-1999, hence, this civil revision.
3. Learned Law Officer on behalf of the petitioners has argued that Muhammad Iqbal allottee/transferee was not eligible, to obtain the proprietary rights; that original record of allotment of land measuring 211 kanals, 3 marlas as tenant under Grow More Food Scheme to Muhammad Iqbal and one Barkat Ali in equal half shares at village Tukra 54/1 Tehsil Kamalia was not available in the Revenue Office concerned; that application dated 30-5-1971 in this regard was forged and fictitious; that another application dated 14-3-1983 was available on the record whereby Muhammad Iqbal and Barkat Ali requested for allotment of alternate land; that as per Revenue Record cultivation of former tenancy in Chak No,54/1 Tukra was less than 50% therefore application of Muhammad Iqbal and another was rejected by District Collector Toba Tek Singh vide order dated 18-2-1990; that application for review was filed on 7-3-1990; that District Collector vide order dated 13-5-1990 on the basis of misleading report of the revenue staff allotted land measuring 199 kanals, 14 marlas in equal share to Muhammad Iqbal and Barkat Ali by reviewing his earlier order dated 18-2-1990; that conveyance deed of the land measuring 99 kanals, 14 marlas in Chak No,390/J.B. Tehsil and District Toba Tek Singh registered in favour of Muhammad Iqbal on 12- 11-1990 and that price of the land @ Rs,1053 per acre was fixed on the basis of forged and fictitious report; that allotment of the land and transfer thereof by District Collector in favour of Muhammad Iqbal are based on fraud and misrepresentation therefore learned Member (Colonies) Board of Revenue lawfully took the suo motu cognizance in exercise of his powers in terms of section 30(2) of the Colonization Of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 and cancelled the allotment/conveyance deed through order dated 24-8-1994 after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties in accordance with law that concurrent findings of the learned Courts below are based on misreading and non-reading of evidence causing serious injustice and heavy loss to the State; that petitioners had also lodged an application for production of additional evidence before the learned First Appellate Court but no cogent reasons have been given by the learned First Appellate Court for the rejection of the said application. Further submits that judgments of learned Courts below based on surmises and conjectures being untenable liable to set aside can be looked into by this Court in exercise of Revisional jurisdiction. She takes reliance upon Mrs.Kishwar Ashraf v. Senior Member, Board of Revenue (Member Revenue), Punjab, Lahore and 2 others (2010 CLC 916).
4. On the other hand it is resisted by respondent No,1 whereas remaining respondents have been proceeded against ex parte. Learned counsel for the respondent No,1 has contended that learned Law Officer for the petitioners has not been able to point out any material misreading or non- reading of evidence or any irregularly or illegality committed by the learned Courts below to challenge the concurrent findings of the facts; that no application for additional evidence was moved by the petitioners before the learned trial Court and that no application has been repeated before this Court; that most of the documents petitioners wanted to produea by way of additional evidence were already available on the record; that respondent has sufficiently established on the record that application" for allotment of alternate land was moved well within time; that even petitioners own documentary evidence sufficiently reveals that more than 50% of land under tenancy was culturable rendering Muhammad Iqbal eligible to the proprietary rights; that the learned Member Board of Revenue in the impugned order dated 24-8-1994 was of the view that District Collector had not taken due care by way of scrutinizing the record while reviewing his order; that no material is placed by the petitioners on the record to substantiate alleged fraud or misrepresentation on the part of Muhammad lqbal allottee; that conveyance deed in favour of Muhammad Iqbal was issued to the extent of the land forming one half of the tenancy as per his eligibility without any illegality or irregularity on his part; that after grant of proprietary rights through a lawful judicial order passed by the District Collector and execution of registered conveyance deed in favour of the allottee Muhammad Iqbal, the Member Board of Revenue had no authority to reopen the matter in exercise of suo motu jurisdiction; that as per section 16 and section 30 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act 1912 and Paragraph No,155-A of the Departmental Instructions referred in Schedule-II of the Act ibid, on completion of purchase and execution of conveyance deed the parties seize to be governed by condition Incompatible with those actually incorporated in the instrument itself therefore impugned order of learned Member Board of Revenue as such was totally illegal and without jurisdiction; that the impugned judgments of learned Courts below do not suffer from any jurisdictional error factual or legal infirmity therefore petitioners have no case to invoke the revisional jurisdiction of this Court against lawful concurrent findings of learned Courts below; that the revision petition lacking any merit is liable to be dismissed.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. At the outset it may be expedient to reproduce provisions of section 30 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 which reads below:-- "Section 30. Acquisition of proprietary rights.--(1) Notwithstanding anything entered in any statement of conditions under the Government Tenants (Punjab) Act, 1893, a tenant who, either in pursuance of any condition or otherwise by agreements with, or under rules issued by the Provincial Government has acquired proprietary rights in any land included in his tenancy shall in respect of such land cease to be subject to any statement of conditions issued under the above mentioned Act: provided always that he shall in respect of such land be bound by the conditions set out in Schedule-II of this Act and be bound by the other provisions of this Act applicable to proprietors of land.
(2) If at any time, the Board of Revenue is satisfied that any person had acquired under this Act tenancy rights in respect of any land by means of fraud or misrepresentation or was not eligible to have such rights from any reason whatsoever then notwithstanding the acquisition of proprietary rights by such person in such land or the terms and conditions of any agreement with or rules issued by the Provincial Government and without prejudice to any other liability or penalty to which such persons may be liable under any law for the time being in force, the Board of Revenue may, after giving such persons a reasonable opportunity of showing cause, pass an order resuming the land in respect of which proprietary rights have been acquired or reduce the area of such land or pass such order as it may deem fit."
7. Bare reading of subsection (2) of section 30 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab)
Act 1912 manifest that if at any time the Board of Revenue is satisfied that any person had acquired tenancy rights in respect of any land by means of fraud or misrepresentation or was not eligible to have such rights for any reason whatsoever then notwithstanding the acquisition of proprietary rights by such person in such land after giving such person a reasonable opportunity of showing cause may pass an order resuming. The land in respect of which proprietary rights have been acquired. In this case order dated 24-8-1994 passed by Member (Colonies) Board of Revenue transpires that learned Member Board of Revenue took the suo motu cognizance in the matter on the report of an Auditor of the Department mainly on the grounds that (i) original record of the allotment of tenancy in favour of the allottees was not available in the office; (ii) that request of the allottees for alternate land was earlier disallowed by the Deputy District Collector Toba Tek Singh vide order dated 18-2-1990 on the ground that the lessees' cultivation in the land was less than 50%; (iii) that subsequent review of earlier order dated 18-2-1990 by the District Collector was based on misleading reports of the Revenue staff.
8. Record reveals that in this case the earlier tenancy of the lessees was resumed by the Government as the same was falling within municipal limits. The lessees therefore moved an application to the District Collector for allotment of the alternate land. The said application was dismissed vide order dated 18-2-1990. The lessees lodged review petition which was accepted and earlier order dated 18-2-1990 was reviewed and the lessees were allotted land measuring 199 kanals, 14 marlas in equal share in Chak No,54/1 Tukra. Petitioners' plea that the lessees' cultivation of former tenancy was less than 50% is not supported by the petitioners' own witness namely Muhammad. Ramzan Patwari (DW-1) who appeared before the Court along with the record and during cross-examination admitted that 67% of the total area in Rabi 1961, 70% of the total area in Kharif 1971 and 72% of the total area in Rabi 1962 had been developed therefore petitioners have failed to bring any speck of material on the record to substantiate their plea of fraud or misrepresentation or non-eligibility of the allottees. It is admitted by the petitioners that Muhammad Iqbal and Barkat Ali were allottees of a tenancy under Grow More Food Scheme. Mere non-availability of any record in the office has no adverse effect on the allottees valuable rights. In the absence of any fraud, misrepresentation or non-eligibility of the lessees in acquiring the tenancy right in the land, the learned Member Board of Revenue had no jurisdiction to cancel the allotment or rescind the conveyance deed to resume the land. Proceedings taken by Member Board of Revenue under section 30(2) of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act 1912 were therefore without lawful authority and of no legal effect. Reliance be made upon Ghous Muhammad Vs. Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore (1986 MLD 997).
9. Besides above it may be expedient to reproduce provisions of section 16 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 which reads below:- "Section 16. False Information by tenant.--If any person who after the commencement of this Act has been put in possession of land in a colony as a tenant shall have given false information intend;ng or having reason to believe that any servant of the State may be thereby deceived regarding his qualification to become a tenant, he shall be deemed to have committed a breach of the conditions of his tenancy; ' Provided that this section shall not apply to persons who have been in possession of a tenancy for more than three years or to any person who has acquired a right of ownership."
In this case admittedly conveyance deed was executed in favour of Muhammad Iqbal allottee who had acquired proprietary rights after payment of the consideration amount. Needless to say that in terms of sections 16 and 30 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 on completion of purchase and execution of conveyance deed the parties seize to be governed by any condition incompatible with those actually incorporated in the instrument itself. Since no fraud, misrepresentation, imparting any false information or ineligibility is established against the allottees in obtaining the lease os proprietary rights of the land therefore no sufficient ground or justification existed with the learned Member Board of Revenue to invoke the suo motu jurisdiction under section 30(2) of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 when action against the purchaser could have been taken according to the terms and conditions of the sale itself. Reliance is made upon Muhammad Ashraf and others v. Ijaz Ahmad Bajwa (PLD 1985 Rev.8), Ch. Muhammad Wasi and 9 others v. Member (Colonies) Board of Revenue Punjab Lahore (2001 CLC 564).
10. For what has been said above, in absence of any misreading or non-reading of the evidence in concurrent findings of the learned Courts below on material questions, no case is made out by the petitioners for this Court to interfere in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Reliance is made upon Abdul Mateen and others v. Mst.Mustakhia (2006 SCMR 50) and Muhammad Bakhsh v. Ellahi Bukhsh and others (2003 SCMR 286).
11. I have carefully gone through the facts of the case of Mrs. Kishwar Ashraf (supra) cited by learned Law Officer on behalf of the petitioners. Facts of the cited case are altogether distinct and distinguishable from the facts of this case therefore dictum laid down in the cited case is of no avail to the petitioners.
12. For the above reasons, I do not find any jurisdictional error, factual or legal infirmity in the impugned judgments and decrees passed by learned Courts below. The petitioners have no case to invoke the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. This revision petition having no merit is dismissed.