' This civil revision is directed against the judgment and decree dated 14.10.2006, passed by Learned Addl. District Judge, Bahawalpur whereby he accepted the appeal of the respondents and set aside the judgment and decree dated 15.06.2004, passed by learned Civil Judge, Bahawalpur whereby he decreed suit of the petitioners/plaintiffs.
2. Precisely, necessary facts for disposal of this revision petition are that petitioners being plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration against the respondents challenging orders dated 14.5.1995 and 06.02.1996, passed by Collector (Consolidation) and Commissioner (Revenue), Bahawalpur Division, being against law and facts, void ab-initio, ineffective upon the rights of plaintiffs, stating therein that petitioners are entitled to get land measuring 6 kanals out of Square No, 12, Killa No, 17, at Chak No, 105-D, Yazman in lieu of their land bearing Square No, 79, Killa Nos. 110, 20, 21 and Square No, 33, Killa Nos. 1, 10, 11, 20, sanctioned for path. As consequential relief, plaintiffs seek decree for permanent injunction to the effect that respondents be restrained from interfering into possession of plaintiffs and not allot the same to anyone else. The suit was resisted by respondents/defendants through written statement alleging therein that u/S. 36 of Colonization Act, 1912, Civil Court has got no jurisdiction. The impugned orders were lawfully passed by the defendants which are not challenged by petitioners/plaintiffs before the Board of Revenue. Out of divergent pleadings of parties, learned Civil Judge framed the relevant issues. After observing legal formalities, learned Civil Judge decreed suit of petitioners/plaintiffs vide judgment dated 15.06.2004. The respondents filed an appeal which was accepted vide judgment and decree dated 14.10.2006, passed by learned Addl. District Judge, Bahawalpur. Being aggrieved, petitioners have filed instant revision petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that learned Civil Judge passed the impugned judgment and decree after appreciating the evidence in its true perspective while learned Appellate Court had reversed the findings mainly on the ground that land was not acquired by the concerned department and under the Government policy and there is no illegality or irregularity in the order passed by Collector (Consolidation) dated 6.2.1996; that learned Appellate Court has not appreciated the oral and documentary evidence produced by petitioners in-spite of the fact that there is no rebuttal on the file against the evidence of petitioners/plaintiffs.
4. Conversely, learned AAG has supported the impugned judgment and decree and pleaded that in fact the petitioners had transferred their land on the application of residents of the areas and learned A.C/Collector had delivered proposed land to the petitioners against policy of the Government. Under Section-36 of Colonization of Government Land Act, 1912, Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the matter in hand.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it appears that residents of Chak No, 93/DB, 98/DB, 99/DB, 104/DB, Tehsil Yazman, District Bahawalpur moved an application to the A.C/Collector, Yazman for sanctioning of passage/public path. After proceeding on the application, A.C/Collector held that petitioners were justified and he sanctioned the way/path vide order dated 15.11.1986 and also held that plaintiffs/petitioners, would be given alternate land measuring 6 kanals out of Square No, 12, Killa No, 17, at Chak No, 105-D, Yazman. After aforementioned recommendations, A.C/Collector sent the record to the Settlement Officer. As per petitioners, their land was obtained for welfare of the general public vide order dated 14.05.1995, therefore, it was duty of the respondents to acquire the land in accordance with law and to fix the compensation. No order was passed in this regard. The respondents have turned down the proposal of Assistant Commissioner (Collector) without any lawful justification and passed the impugned orders dated 15.05.1995 and 06.02.1996 against law and facts, which are ineffective upon the rights of plaintiffs. In consequence of the impugned orders, plaintiffs have been deprived of their land measuring 6-Kanals without any compensation. Conversely, version of defendants was that land was not allotted to petitioners/plaintiffs by competent authority, petitioners/plaintiffs should have filed suit against Highway. Department as the road fall within F.M category and compensation or land in alternate cannot be given to the petitioners. In support of their version, petitioners produced oral and documentary evidence. In. Evidence, Khizar Hayat, Ghulam Abbas and Muhammad Aslam appeared as PW-1 to PW-3 and they have placed documentary evidence Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-11. The respondents/defendants have failed to produce evidence despite seeking various opportunities including last/final opportunity with costs. In consequence the learned trial Court closed their evidence vide order dated 04.03.2004.
6. From the evidence it is established that inhabitants of Chak No, 93/DB, 98/DB, 99/DB, 104/DB, Tehsil Yazman, District Bahawalpur moved an application to the A.C/Collector, Yazman for sanctioning of passage/public path. After proceeding on the application, A.C/Collector held that petitioners were justified and he sanctioned the way/passage vide order dated 15.11.1986 and held that plaintiffs/petitioners, would be given alternate land measuring 6 kanals out of Square No, 12, Killa No, 17, at Chake No, 105-D, Yazman. With aforementioned recommendations, he sent record to the ,settlement Officer. The A.C/Collector also delivered possession of 6-kanal land to Square No, 12 Killa No, 17 to the plaintiffs/petitioners and possession still lies with the petitioners/plaintiffs. The A.C/Collector further referred the matter to the Deputy Commissioner to sanction alternate land in favour of petitioners which was forwarded to the Commissioner who did not agree and proposal was turned down by him. Admittedly, respondents for the purpose of construction of the road has taken land of petitioners and provided alternate land to the petitioners but no mutation was sanctioned in their favour. The respondents have acquired land of petitioners without giving alternate land or compensation to them and respondents have failed to produce evidence against petitioners/plaintiffs. The learned Civil Judge after appreciating the evidence rightly held that nobody should be deprived from his own land. The learned Appellate Court reversed the findings of the learned Civil Judge mainly on the ground that proposal made by A.0 was against the Government policy arid land of the petitioners was not acquired by the concerned department.
The respondents have taken the land of petitioners for welfare of public, without transferring the land in the name of petitioners or compensation. Learned Civil Judge rightly decreed the suit of plaintiffs/petitioners after appraisal of evidence.
7. So far jurisdiction of the Civil Court is concerned, Civil Court can exercise its jurisdiction, where the cases of the parties are ultra-vires, or without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction. Section 36 of Punjab Colonization Act, would be applicable only where the authorities act within the four corners of their jurisdiction but not otherwise. Reliance is placed upon case law titled "Province Of The Punjab through Collector District Khushab, Jauharabad and others vs. Haji Yaqoob Khan and others" (2007 SCM R 554).
8. In view of the above discussed facts, the revision petition is accepted, the judgment and decree passed by learned Appellate Court is hereby set aside and suit of the plaintiffs/petitioners is decreed in their favour.