' IJAZ AHMAD, J.---The petitioners instituted a suit for declaration and perpetual injunction challenging the various orders passed by the revenue hierarchy, the last of those dated 22-6-2009 passed by the Member, Board of Revenue. The respondent No,1 made an application under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. For the rejection of the plaint. It was dismissed by the learned trial court vide order dated 6-5-2010. The revision petition filed by the petitioner was accepted resulting in acceptance of the application under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. And in rejection of the plaint.
2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order passed by the learned court seized with the revision petition is violative of law; that a plaint could only be rejected if it does not disclose any cause of action and if the suit from the statement in the plaint appears to be barred by any law. Refers "Muhammad Tariq Mehmood v. Ghulam Sarwar and others" (2001 YLR 1834). He refers to the provisions of section 9 C.P.C. To argue that a Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to try all the suits of civil nature with the exception of those, of which cognizance is 'expressly or impliedly barred. Section 172 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967 does not put an embargo on a civil court from exercising its jurisdiction in the matters mentioned therein. The ouster of jurisdiction of a civil court mentioned in any statute is not absolute and is always classified. A civil court can judicially review any order passed by a Tribunal if the same is illegal and void. Relies on "Hais Dil Murad Khan v. Ali Nawaz and others" (1997 MLD 1309), "Hamid Husain v. Government of West Pakistan and others (1974 SCMR 356), "Muhammad Afzal through Legal Heirs and others v.
Riaz Mahmood, Additional District Judge Lahore and 8 others" (PLD 2004 Lahore 115), "Messrs Bambino (Pvt.) LTD. Through Director v. Government of Sindh through Chief Secretary and another (2002 MLD 1673), Abbasia Cooperative Bank (Now Punjab Provincial Cooperative Bank Ltd.) through Manager and another" (PLD 1997 SC 3), "Mr. Muhammad Jamil Asghar v. The Improvement Trust, Rawalpindi" (PLD 1965 SC 698), "Abdul Rauf and others v. Abdul Hamid Khan and others" (PLD 1965 SC 671), "Syed Ikhlaque Hussain Shah v. Sh. Muhammad Bashir and others" (2007 CLC 872) and "Province of West Pakistan v. Haji Muhammad Juman and another" (PLD 1960 (W.P.) Karachi 908).
3. On the other hand, it is contended by the learned counsel on behalf of the respondents that a question of ouster jurisdiction of a civil court is involved in a matter relating to the partition of agricultural land as is provided under section 172 of Land Revenue Act, 1967. The orders passed by the revenue hierarchy if not void altogether and if not passed without the jurisdiction vested in it cannot be judicially reviewed by a civil court. Relies on "Abdul Majeed v. Mst. Majeedan Bibi and others" (2006 CLC 1155) and that an order passed in revision by a civil court cannot be challenged in a constitution petition. Relies on "Mst. Zaidat v. Shahadat and others" (1989 SCMR 1392), "Dilshad v. Additional District Judge, Multan and others" (1986 SCMR 1396) and "Muhammad Khan and 6 others v. Mst. Ghulam Fatima and 12 others" (1991 SCMR 970).
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record and have perused the judgments referred by the learned counsel for the parties.
5. The respondent No,1 had made an application for partition of the land in dispute. It was accepted by the Tehsildar Sahiwal vide order dated 6-12-2006. The appeal and the revision petitions preferred by the petitioners were dismissed by the D.O.R., E.D.O.R. And the Member, Board of Revenue. All these orders were challenged in the suit. It was alleged that the wandas were not made according to the respective rights of the parties. The rejection of the plaint by the learned Additional District Judge is in question. The primary question is not as to which of the court or the authority had the exclusive jurisdiction to make the partition of the land, because it was made by the revenue authorities. The primary issue is, if all the revenue hierarchy had dealt with the matter and had decided the same concurrently in favour of the respondent No,1, could the decisions made by that hierarchy be judicially reviewed by a civil court. The judgments referred by the learned counsel for the petitioners are focused on the point that the baring provisions contained in section 172 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act 1967 are not absolute. The questions of mala fide of the functionaries and of non-existence of the jurisdiction of the revenue authorities can be judicially reviewed and the orders passed by them can be declared null and void by a civil court. There is no cavil to this proposition of law. The petitioners in their plaint have not levelled the allegation that the revenue authorities had acted in a mala fide manner and did not have the jurisdiction. The stance of the petitioners in their plaint was that the parties were not given the land exactly according to their respective sharers due. The powers of judicial review of civil court are circumvented by imposition of the condition of existence of the mala fide of the authority or the tribunal and the exercise of un-conferred jurisdiction by it. Both these conditions are not present in the instant case. The revenue hierarchy had the jurisdiction. The mala fide is not attributed. The revenue hierarchy and not a civil court can better take care of the value of the land and the respective rights of the parties at the time of partition of the agricultural land. The scope of interference by this court is very narrow. The order passed in revision unless held arbitrary, fanciful or illegal altogether cannot be interfered with in exercise of the constitutional jurisdiction of this court. I seek guidance from judgments referred by both the parties. The plaint has rightly been rejected by the court seized with the revision petition. The order passed is not the one warranting the interference by this court. This petition has no merit it is hereby dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.