' ZAFARULLAH KHAN KHAKWANI, J. --- Anwar Ali respondent/plaintiff was allotted agricultural land on lease measuring 104-Kanais & 5-Marlas in Chak No, 204/Mural Gharby. Tehe Chishtian, District Bahawalnagar by the order dated 03.09.1975 passed by Assistant Commissioner/Collector Sub Division Chishtian under temporary cultivation scheme for 0f years starting from Khareef 1975 to Rabee 1980. The respondent paid all the requisite dues for whole period of lease. During the subsistence of the above referred lease, the Government of Punjab announced a policy for grant of proprietary rights to the lease holders under Temporary Cultivation Scheme vide notification dated 03.09.1979 and last date for submission of application for grant of lease rights was fixed as 31.12.1979.
2. The respondent having eligibility vide application sated 13.12.1979 applied for grant of proprietary rights under the said scheme to the competent authority on the ground that he is in cultivation possession of the said land and developed the same into cultivable land with his hard work and labour after incurring amount on it. The said application filed by respondent was dismissed by District Collector, Bahawalnagar vide order dated C3.12.1990 on the ground that the petitioner is civil servant and is working in Education Department. The appeal filed by the respondent before Commissioner Bahawalpur Division was dismissed vide order dated 20.06.1991 and the revision filed by respondent before Board of Revenue, Punjab also met with the same fate on 23.06.1992.
3. The respondent feeling aggrieved of the said orders instituted a civil suit on 28.09.1992 in the Court of competent jurisdiction- at Chishtian against the above-said three orders passed against him. The petitioners contested the said suit by filing written statement and raising different preliminary as well as other objections in it. On divergent pleadings of the partios, the learned Trill Court framed following five Issues vide its order dated 27.06.1994:- ' ISSUES.
1. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of &ion and locus standi to fife this rasa? OPP.
2. Whether this Couti kicks juti.Sdic:ion to try Lta case?
3. Whether the impugned orders of the defendants dated 03.12. PO, 20.06.1991 and 23.06.1992 are illegal and void and are not binding upon the plaintiff? OPP.
4. If Issue No, 3, is proved wh-trier plaintiff is entitled for the grans ef prop ietaiy rights of the suit properly? OM.
5. Relief.
4. At trial, the plaintiff entered the witness-box as PW.1 and produced Muhammad Rafiq as PW.2. He also produced documentary evidence, detail of which is 'as under:--- {{TABLE}} ' Ex.P.1 Ex.P.2 Ex.F.3 Ex.P.4 Ex.P-5 Ex.P.6 Ex. P. 7 ' Cepy of order 'If A. C. Dated 03.X.1P75, ' Copy of Fard-e- caqseel ' Copy of challai, ' Copy of order of 0.0., ' Copy of order of Commissioner, ' Copy of order of Board of Revenue, ' Copy of order of Member Colonies, ' Ex.P.8 Copy of order of Education Department, ' Ex.P.9 Copy of order of Member Colonies, ' Ex. P.10 Copy of order of Member Roard of Revenue dated 26.11.1986, ' Ex.P.11 Copy of judgment of Addl. District Judge dated 11.07.1995 #TBS ' Ex. P.15 Copy of Khasragirdavyari 1985 to 1989, Ex. P.16 Copy of order of D.C. Dated 24.07.1990, #TBE #TBS ' Ex. P.12 Copy of Khasragirdawari 1990-91, ' Ex.P.13 Copy of Khasragirdawari, ' Ex. P.14 Copy of Khasragirdawari of Chak No, 204, #TBE and Ex. P.17 Copy of Khasragirdawari 1993 to 1997 and closed his evidence. {{TABLE}}
5. In rebuttal, a senior Clerk of Deputy Commissioner, Bahawalnagar appeared at trial as DW.1.
Following documents were also tendered in evidence on behalf of the defendants:--- #TBS Ex. D.1 Ex.D.2 Ex.D.3 Ex.D.4 Ex.D:5 Ex.D.6 Ex.D.7 #TBE Copy of report of Colony Assistant Chishtian, Copy of order of D.C. Dated 12.11.1985, Copy of Chakbandi dated 15.02.1985, Copy of order of Additional Commissioner.
Copy of plaint, Copy of order of Addl. Commissioner dated 21.01.1987, Copy of order of D.C. Bahawalnagar dated 03.12.1990, Ex.D.8 Ex.D.9 Ex. D.10 Ex.D.1 Ex. D.12 Copy of plaint titled as Anwar Ali vs. Province of Punjab, Copy of plaint titled as Anwar Ali vs. Province of Punjab, etc., Copy of order of Commissioner dated 26.06.1991, Copy of order of Member Board of Revenue, Copy of service book of Anwar Ali, Ex. D.13 Copy of Roznamcha Waqiati, Ex. D.14 Copy of Jamabandi, Ex.D.15 Copy of mutation, and Ex.
D.16 Copy of letter of Deputy Secretary. {{TABLE}}
6. After close of evidence of both the parties, the learned Trial Court after hearing arguments and perusing the record decreed the suit vide judgment dated 28.07.1997. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners filed an appeal before District Judge, Bahawalnagar which was heard by a learned Additional Distt. Judge, Bahawalnagar who vide judgment dated 11.12.2000 dismissed the same by upholding the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court. Hence this civil revision.
7. Arguments have been heard and record perused
8. The minute examination of evidence leaves no doubt that at the time of grant of original lease to the respondent under Temporary Cultivation Scheme in 1975, the petitioner was not in government service and was eligible for grant of lease. He paid all the requisite dues to Government of Punjab for the whole of the tenancy period i,e, from 1975 to 1980 and in this way valuable right had accrued in his favour during this period. It is also admitted that the respondent filed application for grant of proprietary rights within stipulated period contemplated in Policy dated 03.09,1979. The possession of the respondent on the disputed land is also established from the record. Even otherwise, in the said Policy dated 03.09.1979 under which the said !Ease has been granted, there is no bar on grant of proprietary rights to the government servants. The preponderance of ride, available on the record fully supports the claim o the respondent/paintiff. The revenue record prodded id duly submitted by the plaintiff/respondant during the curse of trial without any objeation had fully supported his stance. Neither the courts below while recording findings of fact have either mis- read the evidence nor ignored any material piece of evidence while delivering both judgments and thcree3 impugned herein.
9. There is no cavil to the proposition and it has also been held by the superior Courts repeatedly that while dewing with the matters uncle: Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the revisional Court is vested with the powers only to examine three elements as specified in Section 115(1), (a),
(b) & (c) of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. These powers are supervisory in nature and not like powers of Court of Appeal. Revision is not a right but is a privilege and is available only where right of appeal has not been given in the Statute, whereas, the appeal is a right created by the Statute.
10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India while dealing with the said revisional powers in the ease of Shiv Shakti Co-op. Homing Soddy, Alagpur v. Ws. Swaraj Developers and others (AIR 2003 SUPREME Cowl 2434), held that:- "it is fairly a well-settled is law that the right of appeal is a substantial right. But there is no such substantive right in making an application under S.
115. Section 115 is essentially a source of power for the High Court to supervise the subordinate Courts. It does not in any way confer a right on a litigant aggrieved by any order of the subordinate Court to approach fhe High Court for relief. The scope for making a revision under S. 115 is not linked with a substantive right"
11. It is also too settled to admit any debate that this Court while exercising powers under revisional jurisdiction, dealing with the cases involving concurrent findings of the fact of the Courts below is .
Not obliged to upset said findings. This jurisdiction is purely for correction of jurisalioliai errors and material irregularities. Reliance may be placed. On the cases of Cantonment Board through Executive Officer, Cantt. Board, Rawalpindi v. Lkhlaq Ahmed and ,)thers (2014 SCM R 161), Administrator, Thal. Eierelopment through EACO Bhakkar and others v. Ali Mulictnrilnad (2012 SCMP.
730) and Anwar Zaman and 5 Gth9rs v. Bahadur Sher and others (2000 SCM R 431).
12. For the reasons recorded above, I found no irregularity, jurisdictional defect or any mis-reading and non-readings of evidence in this case. Resultantly, this revision petition is devoid of merits, thus, the same stands dismissed with no order as to costs. Civil revision petition dismissed.