ASIM HAFEEZ, J.---This petition assails orders dated 02.05.2017 and 16.08.2017. by learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue) and Member , Board of Revenue, respectively whereby the application of the petitioner for implementation of , sale deed dated 01.04.1946 was dismissed.
2. The petitioner claimed to have purchased land measuring 2-Kanal 10-Marlas from one Sohan Lal by way of unregistered sale deed dated 01.04.1946, regarding land measuring 2-Kanal 10-Ma rla (out of total land of 10-Kanal 10- Marla) against consideration of Rs,90 which alleged transaction was not implemented in the revenue record.
The seller , i.e Sohan Lal died on 15.12.19 46 and inheritance mutation of the total land was sanctioned in favour of legal heirs of the deceased, who migrated to India at the time of partition. After partition, land assumed status of evacuee land and it stood transferred to Central Government and after repeal of evacuee laws, it came in the ownership of the Provincial Government by operation of law. The petitioner filed suit for declaration and permanent injunction on 25.06.2013 Suit No, 430/13 - which was dismissed on 25.05.2014 as no declaration in favour of the petitioner could be made in lieu of evacuee land, which fell to the ownership of the provincial government. It is pertinent to point that alleged possession of the petitioner was shown as illegal occupant. The petitioner , thereafter , filed application with Assistant Commissioner Gujranwala, which was not entertained on the ground that petitioner may seek relief from the Civil Court. The Petitioner again approached Civil Court by filing suit for declaration and permanent injunction on 06.09.2014, which was dismissed on 21.11.2015 being time barred. Aggrieved, appeal was filed and same was dismissed vide judgment dated 19.01.2017 by the Additional District Judge Gujranwala.
The petitioner again approached the revenue authorities and sought implementation of judgment dated 19.01.2017 and implementation of sale deed dated 01.04.1946, which application was dismissed vide order dated 02.05.2017.
Thereafter , the petitioner filed revision petition under Section 164 of the Land Revenue Act, 1964 which too was dismissed on 16.08.2017 Hence, this petition.
3. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is aggrieved of the orders of respondents Nos,1 and 3, who had failed to exercise jurisdiction vested under Land Revenue Act, 1967, regarding implementation of sale deed dated 01.04.1946 in respect of land measuring 2-Kanal 10-Marla, allegedly owned and possessed by the petitioner . Per leaned counsel, he had also approached Civil Court but the issue regarding implementation of document of sale dated 01.04.1946 was primarily treated as falling within the authority/jurisdiction of the revenue authorities.
4. The issue involved is simple but interesting. Two questions crop up after hearing the submissions, firstly that whether the land in question can be treated as an evacuee land - as the petitione r had claimed purchase thereof before creation of Pakistan and secondly that whether any declaration was ever made in favour of the petitioner on the basis of unregistered document of sale dated 01.04.1946 to acknowledge his ownership and possession.
5. Upon perusal of available record, it is evident that claim of the petitioner , regarding purchase of claimed land, was neither recorded in the revenue record nor any judicial declaration made in favour of the petitioner . Admittedly , the property , as per the revenue record, belonged to the legal heirs of Sohan Lal, which property had all attributes of an evacuee property , after partition of Sub-continent. Once the property had assumed evacuee status, it would be subject to all relevant laws, rules and regulations which laws would determine the ownership and status thereof accordingly . The petitioner never approached the Settlement Authorities, hence there is no question of any allotment or disposal in its favour . Since the petitioner had no claim as allottee of the evacuee land therefore, he never approached the Settlement Authorities or Notified officer, as the case may be. The Civil Court has no jurisdiction to determine or grant any declaration with respect to the evacuee land, once property is treated as an evacuee property or ascertain status thereof. The issue is not the determination of the status of the evacuee property or transfer / allotment thereof, after vesting it with evacuee property status, by operation of law, but entitlement of the petitioner to raise claim in respect thereof.
6. At best the claim of the petitioner could that since he had purchased the property before partition, therefore, evacuee status could not be conferred on the property , to the extent of the property purchased from Sohan Lal. But before, it could claim non-evacuee status of the property; the petitioner needed a declaration qua its ownership and possession of the land, being an owner . No declaration was made in favour of the petitioner , who filed suits for declaration and permanent injunction but failed to avail remedy in law after dismissal of appeal vide judgment dated 19.01.2017. It was not without a reason. The petitioner was aware that its claim of declaration was barred by limitation, which findings were accordingly recorded by the courts below . The failure of the petitioner to challenge judgment dated 19.01.2017 was the straw that broke camel's back. The petitioner opted to file suit for declaration and permanent injunction in the year 2013, after loss of 57 years. The conduct of the petitioner is not above board.
The status of the petitioner is an illegal occupant with respect to the land, owned by the provincial government.
7. The issue is not regarding the implementation of the document of sale dated 01.04.1946 or demarcation of the land for determining possession of the petitioner but its alleged entitlement, locus-standi and so-called rights of the petitioner . The petitioner has been running from pillar to post to save his illegal / unlawful possession of the land, if at all petitioner is still in possession, a fact evident from different reliefs sought at different points in time and before different forums.
8. The orders impugned before this Court through Writ Petition are examined and same do not suffer from any legal defect, illegality or gross error of law. The right of the petitioner , to claim declaration qua alleged claim of ownership, has been adjudicated upon and determined by the courts of competen t jurisdiction conclusively ,' which had otherwise attained finality .
9. In view of the above, this petition is without any merit and the same is, therefore, dismissed.
No order as to costs.