ZAFARULLAH KHAN KHAKWANI, J.---Anwar Ali respondent/plaintiff was allotted agricultural land on lease measuring 104-Kanals and 5-Marlas in Chak No.204/Murad Gharby, Tehsil Chishtian, District Bahawalnagar by the order dated 03.09.1975 passed by Assistant Commissioner/Collector Sub-Division Chishtian under temporary cultivation scheme for 05-years starting from Khareef 1975 to Rabee 1980. The respondent paidall 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 dated 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 03.12.1990 on the ground that the petitioner is civil servant and is working in Education Department. The appeal filed by there despondent 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 parties, the learned trial court framed following five Issues vide its order dated 27.06.1994:- ISSUES.
(1) Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action and locus standi to file this case? OPD.
(2) Whether this Court lacks jurisdiction to try the case?
(3) Whether the impugned orders of the defendants dated 03.12.1990, 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 whether plaintiff is entitled for the grant of proprietary rights of the suit property? OPP.
(5) Relief.
4. At trial, the plaintiff entered thewitness box as PW.1 and produced Muhammad Rafiq as PW.2. He also produced documentary evidence, detail of which is as under:- ' Ex.P. 1 Copy of order of A.C. Dated 03.09.1975, ' Ex.P.2 Copy of Fard-e-Taqseem, Ex.P.3 Copy of challan, Ex.P.4 Copy of order of D.C., ' Ex.P-5 Copy of order Commissioner, ' Ex.P.6 Copy of order of Board of Revenue, ' Ex. P.7 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 ' Board of Revenue dated 26.11.1986, ' Ex.P.11 Copy of judgment of Addl.District Judge dated 11.07. 1995 , ' Ex.P.12 Copy of Khasragirdawari 1990-91, ' Ex. P.13 Copy of Khasragirdawari, ' Ex. P.14 Copy of Khasragirdawari of Chak No.204, ' Ex. P.15 Copy of Khasragirdawari 1985 to 1989, ' Ex.P.16 Copy of order of D.C. Dated 24.07.1990, and ' Ex. P.17 Copy of Khasragirdawari 1993 to 1997 and closed his evidence.
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:-- ' Ex.D.1 Copy of report of Colony Assistant Chishtian, ' Ex.D.2 Copy of order of D.C. Dated 12.11.1985, ' Ex.D.3 Copy of Chakbandi dated 15.02.1985, ' Ex.D.4 Copy of order of Additional Commissioner, ' Ex.D.5 Copy of plaint, ' Ex.D.6 Copy of order of Addl. Commissioner dated 21.01.1987, ' Ex.D.7 Copy of order of D.C. Bahawalnagar dated 03.12.1990, ' Ex.D.8 Copy of plaint titled as Anwar Ali v. Province of Punjab, ' Ex.D.9 Copy of plaint titled as Anwar Ali v. Province of Punjab, etc., ' Ex.D.10 Copy of order of Commissioner dated 26.06.1991, ' Ex.D.11 Copy of order of Member Board of Revenue, ' Ex.D.12 Copy of service book of Anwar Ali, ' Ex.D. 13 Copy of Roznamcha Wagiati, ' Ex.D.14 Copy of Jamabandi, Ex.D.15 Copy of mutation and ' Ex.D.16 Copy of letter of Deputy Secretary.
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 lease has been granted, there is no bar on grant of proprietary rights to the government servants. The preponderance of evidence available on the record fully supports the claim of the respondent/plaintiff. The revenue record produced and duly exhibited by the plaintiff/respondent during the course of trial without any objection had fully supported his stance. Neither the courts below while recording findings of fact have either misread the evidence norignored any material piece of evidence while delivering both judgments and decrees impugned herein.
9. There is no cavil to the proposition and it has also been held by the superior courts repeatedly that while dealing with the matters under 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 case of Shiv Shakti Co-op. Housing Society, Nagpur v. M/s Swaraj Developers and others (AIR 2003 SUPREME COURT 2434), held that:- "It is fairly a well settled position in law that the right of appeal is a substantive 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 the 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 jurisdictional errors and material irregularities. Reliance may be placed on the cases of Cantonment Board through Executive Officer, Cantt. Board, Rawalpindi v. Ikhlaq Ahmed and others (2014 SCM R 161), Administrator, Thal Development through EA CO Bhakkar and others v. All Muhammad (2012 SCM R 730) and Anwar Zaman and 5 others v. Bahadur Sher and others (2000 SCMR 451).
12. For the reasons recorded above, I found no irregularity, jurisdictional defect or any misreading and non-reading of evidence in this case. Resultantly, this revision petition is devoid of merits, thus,the same stands dismissed with no order as ID to costs.