MUJAHID MUSTAQEEM AHMED, J: By this single judgment, I proceed to decide the instant Civil Revision and connected Civil Revision No.448-D of 2009/BWP titled `Province of Punjab through District Collector and others Versus Muhammad Moosa alias Niaz Ali Moosa' pending in between the same parties, regarding the same suit property and impugning the same judgments/decrees.
2. In brief, facts giving rise to these revision petitions and necessary for their disposal are that Board of Revenue, Punjab Lahore vide notification No.3946-94/803-CSVI, dated 21.03.1995 introduced scheme of sale of state land through private treaty. 'Hie present petitioner through attorney submitted an application (Exh.PW4/I) for purchase of 39 Kanal 13 Marla land (Ghyr Mumkin Khandar) situated in Mouza Dhoor Kot, District Bahawalpur under the scheme and vide letters dated 06.08.1996 and 09.12.1996 Exh.PW4/2 and Exh.P3 respectively, Deputy Commissioner/District Collector, Bahawalpur, forwarded the application to the Commissioner, Bahawalpur Division, Bahawalpur with the request that the case be forwarded to the Board of Revenue, Lahore but no order was passed by Board of Revenue. The petitioner on 17.08.2005 tiled suit for declaration with permanent injunction to the effect that he was entitled to purchase of the suit property under the above scheme.
The right of defence of the respondents was struck off and after recording evidence, suit was decreed in favour of petitioner, vide judgment dated 06.10.2007 passed by learned Civil Judge Ist Class Bahawalpur, in the following terms:- "The plaintiff's suit is hereby decreed accordingly. The sale price, as ascertained by Revenue Authorities be submitted to the A.C/Collector, Ahmedpur East within three months whereafter the latter shall be bound to get the amount deposited in the Government treasury and get a formal mutation sanctioned in plaintiff's favour."
Feeling dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and decree, the respondents filed an appeal which was partly allowed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bahawalpur, vide impugned judgment and decree dated 02.06.2009 in the following terms:- "I partially accept the appeal holding that respondent was not entitled to the declaration that appellants be directed to draft a conveyance/sale deed in his favour (after) receiving from him the amount of sale price Rs.56000/- per acre. The impugned judgment and decree to this effect is not tenable in the eye of law.
However, it is held that the appellants shall not interfere into possession of the respondent or to include the suit land into any other scheme till the orders of the Board of Revenue on the petition Ex.PW-4/2 moved by the respondent. The appeal is disposed of accordingly."
The petitioner through the instant civil revision has assailed the judgment and decree of learned Additional District Judge, mainly on the grounds that the same is against the facts, law and result of misreading and non- reading of evidence. The respondents themselves submitted reports in favour of the petitioner regarding his eligibility to purchase the land under the scheme. The Province of Punjab through District Collector and others (Respondents) have also filed (cross) civil revision, wherein both the judgments and decrees have been assailed mainly on the grounds that the same have been delivered against facts and law, as a result of misreading and non-reading of evidence. It has been further pleaded and argued that the case of the petitioner was pending before Board of Revenue, therefore, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to pass the impugned judgments.
3. Arguments heard. Record perused.
4. There is no denial that till filing of the suit, the Board of Revenue has not passed any order on the application of the petitioner for allotment of land under the above scheme. The only point for determination is whether Civil Court can pre-empt jurisdiction of revenue hierarchy in case of allotment of state land under any scheme. Section 36 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 is relevant and for convenience sake is reproduced hereunder:- "36. Jurisdiction of Civil Court barred as regards matter arising under the Act. A Civil Court shall not have jurisdiction in any matter of which the Collector is empowered by this Act to dispose and shall not take cognizance of the matter in which the Provincial Government, Board of Revenue or Collector or any other Revenue office exercises any power vested in it or in him by or under this Act.
There can be no second opinion that the matter of allotment, determination of terms and conditions of allotment, delivery of possession of allotted land, cancellation of allotment for violation of terms and conditions of allotment or grant of proprietary rights of state land to the allottees exclusively falls within jurisdiction of revenue hierarchy. In precedent 1982 CLC 55 (Lahore) 'Muhammad Shafi Versus Punjab Province through Collector, Vehari and another', a similar question of allotment of Ehata was involved and it was held that such matter fell within exclusive jurisdiction of Special Tribunal under the Act ibid and jurisdiction of Civil Court has been ousted and Civil Courts will have jurisdiction only when orders passed by authorities under the Act ibid are not within jurisdiction. In PLD 1963 (W.P.) Karachi 215 'Abdul Ghafar and others Versus Government of West Pakistan and others' it was held that question to whom lands should have been allotted was within exclusive jurisdiction of the revenue authorities. In 2000 SCMR 1083 'Muhammad Ishaq Versus Abdul Ghani and 3 others', it has been laid down that Civil Court has no jurisdiction in matters of allotment of State land or its cancellation due to clear ouster of jurisdiction clause embodied in Section 36 of Act ibid. In precedent reported as PLJ 1989 Lahore 370 (Multan Bench) 'Province of Punjab, through District Collector, Vehari Versus Rana s/o Sardar' it has been laid down that order passed by Collector can be challenged before Commissioner and thereafter before Board of Revenue and even if order of Collector was bad in law, forum for its correction was Commissioner and Board of Revenue and without having recourse to them in first instance civil suit was barred under law.
5. The petitioner is aspirant for purchase of state land in his favour and only officers in revenue hierarchy under the Act ibid can adjudicate upon the factual plea of petitioner about his such claim. The only legal course for the petitioner was to pursue his case before Board of Revenue. He was not entitled to directly approach the civil court for allotment of land. Issue of allotment of land under any Government scheme exclusively falls within the domain of Board of Revenue and the Civil Court cannot exercise such powers of revenue hierarchy.
6. Of course after passing any order by the Board of Revenue, Civil Court is empowered to examine its legality or propriety and jurisdiction of civil court is not barred where acts of revenue authorities are ultra vires or without jurisdiction, collusive or bad in law or void or in excess of their jurisdiction or passed in absence of aggrieved party or based on fraud. If any action or order of executive officer is ultra vires, it can be struck down by civil court irrespective of bar under Section 36 of Act ibid. So civil court is competent to examine whether or not act purported to have been done under Act ibid could be validly done. If t e order passed by colony authorities is within four corners of their jurisdiction, would be immuned to interference by civil court in view of bar under Section 36 of Act ibid. In respect of this legal question of jurisdiction of civil Court, the privy council in 'Secretary of State v. Mask and company', (AIR 1940 PC 105) has laid down the following principles:- "The exclusion jurisdiction of the Civil Courts is not to be readily inferred but that such exclusion must either be explicitly expressed or clearly implied. It is also well settled that even if jurisdiction is so excluded, the Civil Courts have jurisdiction to examine into cases where the provisions of the Act have not been complied, or the statutory tribunal has not acted in conformity with the fundamental principles judicial procedure."
It is worth mentioning that different statutes have provided that an order made by the authority acting under it shall not be challenged in any Court. The intentions of the legislature in their wisdom qua, Section 36 of Act ibid are that the officers working under the Act shall exercise their powers freely and should not be interrupted unnecessarily to administer colony land according to the terms and conditions issued by the competent authority off and on but this provision does not give unfettered/unchecked power. The ambit of jurisdiction of revenue hierarchy has been laid down by the Act and the officers functioning thereunder cannot be allowed to act beyond their scope of jurisdiction. The Civil Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction has the authority/power to interfere if the orders of revenue hierarchy are found without jurisdiction, malafide, excessive or in violation of law. In the given circumstances, it can be concluded with certainty that the suit filed by the present petitioner was pre-mature, incompetent and as such not maintainable. Both the Courts below have illegally assumed the jurisdiction and have passed the judgments, which are beyond their jurisdiction. As such the impugned judgments are not sustainable. So, while accepting Civil Revision No.448-D of 2009, the impugned judgments and decrees are set aside and the suit filed by the petitioner is dismissed.
7. The revision petition bearing No.422-D of 2009, is time barred for eight days. The petitioner has submitted application for condonation of delay. As in cross revision petition, the legality of impugned judgments and decrees is being examined, so propriety demands that the miscellaneous petition for condonation delay be allowed. As such the delay is condoned. In consequence of above discussion, the civil revision filed by Muhammad Moosa-petitioner is dismissed. The petitioner, if advised so, may pursue his petition pending before Board of Revenue, Lahore and in such eventuality it will be decided at the earliest on merits, after affording fair opportunity of hearing to petitioner, provided the lane is still available under the scheme.