' RIAZAT ALI SAHAR, J.---Muhammad Nawaz, applicant herein, has, by means of this Revision Application, assailed concurrent findings of fact, recorded by two Courts below against him.
2. Facts for disposal of the application, succinctly stated, are that a Suit was filed in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Ghotki by Altaf Hussain and Muhammad Riaz (Plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2) who are sons of Ahmed Khan, and Muhammad Masood Ahmed and Abid Ahsan-ul-Haq (Plaintiffs Nos. 3 and 4) who are sons of Muhammad Muneer Ahmed. Their case was that Ahmed Khan and Muhammad Muneer were granted certain land, which has been detailed in the Plaint. Grant of Muneer, as averred in the Plaint, is as under:-- "That in the year 1965/66, father of plaintiffs Nos. 3 and 4 granted 32 acres agricultural land from UA No, 222, Lot No, 3 along with Soorathal from revised quota of Islamabad Oustees, Block No, 100/4 (2-00), 100/5 (4-10) 103/3 112/1 (4-00) 112/2 (3-00) 112/3 (2-20), 191/4 (2-00), 111/8 (1-27) 111/5 (1-24), .113/3 (3-10), 119/4 (1-00), 112/4 (3-00) 113/1 (1-20), 113/2 (4-00), total (31 acres 31 ghunta), situated in Deh Betoor, Taluka Khangarh, District Ghotki."
' The said grantee expired and his Foti Khata was, according to Plaint, changed in 5-1-2002. Grant of Ahmed Khan, per averments, is as follows:-- "That father of plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 namely Ahmed Khan granted agricultural land from UA 222, 16 acres with Soorthal (Sketch) in the year 1965/66 being Islamabad Oustee from the reserve quota of Islamabad Oustee situated in Deh Betoor, Taluka Khangarh, District Ghotki. Grantee paid all the Government dues towards its purchase price but the Colonization authorities malafidely, intentionally issued TO Form in respect of 12 acres 25 ghuntas, block No, 113 (0-03), 111/9 (00-10), 112/3 (110), 112/1 (00-37), 113/3 (00-27), 132/1 (00-20), 132/2 (02-00), 133/1 (2-00), 132/2 (2-00), 134/1 (1-38), 132/4 (1-00)."
Foti Khata was mutated in favour of legal heirs of Ahmed Khan on 10-6-1999. Controversy starts from the purported grant of the applicant. This has been detailed in the plaint in the following words:-- "That the defendant No, 1, who had good relations with the local administration of Ghotki. He secretly under political approach get allotted five acres land from the reserved quota of Islamabad Oustees from UA No, 222, Deh Betoor in Kharif 1993/94 and on or about 15-4-2004 under the political approach got revised the original allotment from five acres to 16 acres in the papers when on the site lot No, 11, lot No, 2, lot No, 7, lot No, 10 and lot No, 3 of Islamabad Oustees are interconnected with Classi Bana and there is no any space in between the above said lots but the defendants Nos. 2 and 3, who malafidely involved in a bogus grant to the defendant No, 1 in collusion with the defendant No, 5, changed the original Soorathal (Sketch) of the plaintiffs and the same block numbers allotted to the defendant No, 1 in duplicate."
3. In the circumstances, following prayers were made:--
(a) To declare that the plaintiffs are lawful grantees of the land shown in paras Nos. 1 and 2 of the plaint.
(b) To declare that the defendant No, 1 is duplicate grantee of the land shown in Para No, S of the plaint and his grant is bogus, illegal, null and void, without' jurisdiction having of no effect over the original grants of the plaintiffs.
(c) To declare the order of defendant No, 2 illegal, null and void, without jurisdiction and mala fide.
(d) To direct the defendant No, 4 to put such note of the duplicate on the entry of the defendant No, 1.
(e) To restrain the defendants their men from dispossessing the plaintiff, their heirs from the land shown in the Paras Nos. 1 and 2 of the plaint and restrain the defendant, their men, attorneys, agents from harassing the plaintiff and their Haris by way or selling, alienating the suit property by any way to any other person.
(f) To award the costs of the suit to the plaintiffs.
(g) To grant any other suitable relief, which this honourable Court may deem just and proper under the circumstances of the case.
4. In the written statement, the applicant admitted grant of Muhammad Muneer in its entirety whereas admitted the grant of Ahmed Khan to the extent of 12-25 ghuntas. For himself, he appears to have stated that his allotment was on Harap basis and it was initially made with respect to five acres in 1993/94 Kharif and was revised later up to 16 acres. He denied that there was any duplicate grant or the land, granted to him, was of Islamabad Oustees Quota.
5. The trial Court, accordingly, framed following issues:--
(1) Whether the suit is maintainable?
(2) Whether the plaintiffs are lawful owners of the land mentioned in Paras Nos. 1 and 2 of the plaint and are in possession of the same?
(3) Whether the defendant No, 1 was granted five acres land from UA No, 222 of Dehbhitoor, which was reserved for Islamabad Oustees?
(4) Whether revised grant in favour of the defendant No, 1 from five acres to 16 acres is illegal and void?
(5) Whether the defendant No, 1 was granted land in duplicate as the same land already stood granted in favour of plaintiffs?
(6) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for any relief claimed?
(7) What should the decree be?
6. In the plaintiffs' evidence, their attorney, namely, Uazari alias Khalid Mehmood was examined. He produced two allotment orders consisting sketches at their back in plaintiff's favour, mutation entries Nos. 84 and 85 of Deh Form VII-B in favour of Munir and Ahmed Khan, certified true copy of order, passed by Executive District Officer (Revenue) on 3-4-2004, two reports of local commissioner, appointed by the Court and two land revenue receipts. Ganhwar, Riaz Ahmed, Nazir Ahmed, Mukhtiarkar (Land Revenue) Ghotki were also examined. Nazir Ahmed produced statements having signatures of the parties at the time of measurement of the land on direction of Court. He also produced a report submitted by Tapedar. Abdul Sattar, Supervisor of Tapedar of Taluka Khangarh and Local Commissioner were also examined.
7. In the defendant's evidence, defendant Muhammad Nawaz was examined, who produced certified true copy of revised grant in favour of Ahmed Khan, certified true copy of revised sanction in favour of Munir Ahmed, certified true copy of statement, recorded before Executive District Officer, Ghotki on 20-4-2004, certified true copy of statement of Munir before EDO, recorded on 3- 4-2004, mashirnama of measurement, prepared by Mukhtiarkar (Land Revenue) Khangarh on 18- 5-2005 and allotment order, issued by Assistant Colonization Officer and a letter issued by the said Officer to Executive Engineer, Sub-Division, Ghotki for making agreement for water supply. He produced a form, issued in his favour, a letter regarding deposit of installment and letter dated 29- 9-2003, sent by District Officer, Ghotki to Mukhtiarkar (Land Revenue) Khangarh through which two forms were sent. He also produced a true copy of entry No, 57 dated 5-10-2003. In Deh Form VII-B, Abdul Haleem was also examined.
8. After recording findings on each issue, the trial Court decreed the suit by means of Judgment and Decree dated 27-9-2007. Such Judgment and Decree were called in question in Appeal before 2nd Additional District Judge, Ghotki, who dismissed the Appeal by means of Judgment and Decree dated 22-6-2010. As stated above, the applicant is aggrieved of this concurrent decision of the Courts below.
9. Counsel for the applicant has submitted that there was 18 years delay and trial Court did not frame issue as to limitation and that points for determination have not been formulated by the Appellate court properly, which is violative of order XLI, Rule 31, C.P.C. According to tim, Deh form etc. Was not challenged by he respondent. He added that Appeal was filed before EDO (Revenue) in the Hierarchy of Revenue jurisdiction under section 161 for cancellation of duplicate ;rant and that order dated 3-4-2004 passed by EDO (Revenue), Ghotki at Mirpur Mathelo to dismiss the same, which was not hallenged before the Revenue forum.
10. On the contrary, it has submitted that the Revenue Hierarchy did not have power to entertain the issue and, therefore, jurisdiction of Civil Court was rightly invoked. He submitted that on the basis of appropriate evaluation of the evidence, produced before it, the trial Court has given correct Judgment, which was found by the Appellate Court not to calling for any interference.
11. I have given careful consideration to the submissions, made before me as also to the record, available.
12. I would like to take up the issue of jurisdiction in the first instance because Revision lies on the point of jurisdiction, failure to exercise the jurisdiction vested or exercise of jurisdiction not vested or exercise of jurisdiction with illegality or irregularity. It appears to me that forum created under section 161 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967 was invoked by the plaintiffs against duplicate grant and by order dated 3-4-2004, the appeal so filed was rejected by the Executive District Officer, Ghotki.
This order could further be assailed on the point of law. Point of law in this order was that the limitation applied and that the appeal was barred thereby. There, thus, was a forum in Revenue Hierarchy whereto the order could further be called in question, which was omitted.
13. Now question is whether the plaintiffs could invoke jurisdiction of Civil Court without availing remedy before Revenue forums. In Jan Muhammad Abbasi v. Mukhtiarkar Estate, Larkana (Barrage Mukhtiarkar) and others, 2007 CLC 1790, it was observed by this Court as under:-- "9. Section 11 of the Sindh Revenue Jurisdiction Act, 1876 bars jurisdiction of Civil Court to entertain any suit which is filed on account of any act or omission of any revenue officer unless plaintiff proves that he has presented appeal allowed by the law for the time being in force within the period of limitation of such suit. Admittedly, applicant has not filed any appeal or revision before the revenue authorities calling in question order passed by respondent No,6. In the case of Hawaldar Sawar Khan v. Province of Sindh 1998 CLC 382, the learned Single Judge of this Court upheld the order of rejection of the plaint under similar circumstances as barred under section 11 of Sindh Revenue Jurisdiction Act, 1876 and in my view the learned Appellate Court rightly held that the suit filed by the plaintiff calling in question impugned order of respondent No,6, without first availing remedy available under the hierarchy of the Revenue Act, was not maintainable. An order can be strictly not in accordance with law or correct order, but it cannot be said that same has been passed without jurisdiction. Revenue Courts have exclusive jurisdiction to determine matter pertaining to revenue, partition etc. If any case-law is required, one can see Muhammad Hafeez v. Jalal Din 1981 SCMR 1171, Himayat Ahmad v. Khalid Khan and others 1991 MLD 153."
14. Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan, in the case of Administrator, Thal Development through EACO Bhakkar and others v. Ali Ahmed, 2012 SCM R 730, observed as follows:-- "8. Another legal aspect of the case, which also materially affected the maintainability of the suit before the Civil Court in terms of section 9, C.P.C., but escaped the sight of the Court below is the availability of remedy of appeal against the impugned resumption order dated 27-4-1985 in the hierarchy of revenue laws in terms of section 161 of the Land Revenue Act 1967, which was admittedly not availed, but impliedly barred the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in such matters where the jurisdiction to adjudicate exclusively vested with the revenue Courts."
15. In view of these precedents, jurisdiction of Civil Court was barred in the circumstances because Revenue remedies have to be exhausted in the first instance, which has not been done in the present case as the Appeal, initially filed before the Revenue Authority, has not further been challenged before the upper forum of the said authority, as has been observed above. It goes without saying that the Court of civil judicature is the Court of ultimate jurisdiction and, therefore, the matter, finalized by the Revenue forums at the upper level, is open to challenge before the Civil Court.
16. As far as the argument that the Appellate Court has not framed points for determination in its order, it may be observed that such is not so. The Appellate Court has observed that the case before it rested on the determination whether the decision of the trial Court was in accordance with law. Albeit the appellate Court, it may be observed, was required to formulate points for determination looking to the case of both the parties before it, yet it must be said that the point, stated in the impugned 'judgment of appellate court, for determination, was so exhaustive that it covered the entire case though it ought not to have been so formulated. What is the wisdom of law in requiring mandatorily formulation of the points for determination seems to be the fact that the appellate Court looks at every fact requiring determination and it decides the same by adverting to facts as also law thereon by its findings duly backed by sound reasons. The argument that no point for determination was formulated has, therefore, no legs to stand on.
17. Even otherwise, this Court has also observed that the trial Court has relied upon a report of Mukhtiarkar with regard to measurement of the land and the fact that the plaintiffs had been in possession of the purportedly duplicate granted land. There was a report of a Local Commissioner as well in this regard, which has also been made basis of the Decree by the trial Court. There is no indication as to on what record the measurement of the land, subject matter of this lis, was undertaken. Even the trial Court did not take note of it so as to call for the record germane thereto.
This material aspect of the case escaped attention of the appellate Court also. It is the duty of a Court of law to call for the relevant record itself so as to administer justice between the parties.
Courts are ' not supposed to blindly accept simple reports without having backing of record et cetera. Both the Courts below, thus, appear to have acted in cursory manner.
18. In view of above discussion, it has been observed that the appeal filed before EDO (Revenue) in the Hierarchy of Revenue Law under section 161 for cancellation of duplicate grant, was dismissed by EDO (Revenue), Ghotki at Mirpur Mathelo, vide order dated 3-4-2004, but said order was never challenged before the Revenue forum, therefore, the instant Revision Application is accepted and the Judgments and Decrees of two courts below are set aside with no order as to costs.