ALI BAIG, J.----Through the instant Civil Second Appeal, the appellant has challenged the validity and propriety of the impugned judgment/decree dated 23-09-2019 passed by the learned Additional District Judge Gilgit, whereby , the learned First Appellate Court has dismissed the Civil First Appeal of the present appellant by upholding the judgment/order of the learned trial court dated 20-5-2019.
2. Succinctly facts of the case forming back ground of the instant Civil Second Appeal are that the present appellant/plaintif f (hereinafter called as appellant) instituted a suit for declaration and cancellation of order dated 02-09-2006 passed by respondent No.5, whereby , he has cancelled mutation of land owned by the appellant against the present respondents/defendants (hereinafter called as respondents) claiming that he is owner of suit land measuring 10 marlas described in the heading of plaint. The respondent No.5/Naib Tehsildar , vide his order dated 02-09-2006, has wrongly cancelled mutation of suit land which is illegal and liable to be set aside.
3. The respondents hotly contested the suit by filing their written statement in the trial court, wherein, they have raised certain legal objections and have also repudiated the averments of plaint.
4. During trial of suit, the respondents filed an application under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C., for rejection of plaint mainly on the ground that the Civil Court got no jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the suit in terms of Section 172 of Land Revenue Act 1967.
5. The learned trial court after hearing arguments on behalf of both the parties on the aforesaid application has allowed the same and has rejected the suit of the appellant under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C., vide order dated 20- 05-2019.
6. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the. impugned judgment/order passed by the learned trial court, the present appellant had filed Civil First Appeal in the court of learned Additional District Judge Gilgit which was also dismissed by the learned First Appellate Court vide the impugned judgment dated 23-09-2019, hence, this Civil Second Appeal before this Court.
7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant contended that the impugned judgment passed by the learned Additional District Judge Gilgit is contrary to law and facts on the record of the case as such the impugned judgment of learned First Appellate Court is not maintainable and liable to be set aside. The learned counsel for the appellant has further argued that both the courts below have failed to apply their judicious thoughts while passing the impugned judgments/orders and have erroneously rejected the suit of the appe llant/plaintif f under Order 7, Rule 11, C.P .C., whereas, the Civil Court has jurisdiction either to entertain or to adjudicate upon the matter .
8. On the contrary , the learned Deputy Advocate General (Civil) and counsel for the respondent No.6 have controverted the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant by contending that mutation of the appellant has been cancelled by the Naib Tehsildar/Revenue Officer and appeal against the said cancellation order of Revenue Officer of lower grade lies before the Collector under the provisions of Land Revenue Act, 1967 and jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred under Section 172 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967, therefore, the learned courts below have rightly rejected Civil Suit of the present, appellant under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C., which may be maintained.
9. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and with their able assistance I have gone through the record.
10. Admittedly , the appellant has challenged the order dated 02-09-2006 passed by the respondent No.5, whereby , the respondent No.5 has cancelled muta tion No.1764, attested in favor of the appellant. Accordingly , the present appellant had filed civil suit in the trial court instead of filing appeal before higher revenue forum. The learned trial court has rejected suit of the appellant under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C., holding that suit is barred under Section 172(2) of the Land Revenue Act, 1967. Thus, I would like to reproduce subsection (2) of Section 172 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 as under:-
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of subsection (7), a Civil Court shall not exercise jurisdiction over any of the following matters namely:
(i) any question as to the limits of any land which has been defined by a Revenue Officer as land to which this Act does or does not apply;
(ii) any claim to compel the discharge of any duties imposed by this Act or any other enactment for the time being in force on any Revenue Of ficer as such;
(iii) any claim to the office of a Village Officer, or in respect of any injury caused by exclusion from such office, or to compel the discharge of the duties or a division of the emoluments thereof;
(iv) any notification directing the making or revision of a Record of Rights
(v) the framing of a Record of Rights or periodical record, or the preparation, signing or attestation of any of the documents included in such a record;
(vi) the correction of any entry in a Record of Rights, periodical record or register of mutations;
(vii) any notification of the undertaking of the general reassessment of a District or Tehsil having been sanctioned by Governments;
(viii) any objection to the amount or rate of any assessment of land-revenue or the period thereof authorized by Government;
(ix) the claim of any person to be liable for an assessment of land-revenu e or of any other revenue as assessed under this Act;
(x) the amount of land-revenue to be assessed on any estate or to be paid in respect of any holding under this Act;
(xi) the amount of, or the liability of any person to pay, any other revenue to be assessed under this Act, or any cess, charge or rate to be assessed on an estate or holding under this Act or any other enactment for the time being in force;
(xii) any claim relating to the allowance to be received by a land owner who has given notice for his refusal to be liable for an assessment, or any claim connected with or arising out of, any proceedings taken in consequence of the refusal of any person to be liable for an assessment under this Act;
(xiii) the formation of an estate or determination of its boundaries;
(xiv) any claim to hold free of revenue any land, mills fisheries or natural products of land or water:
(xv) any claim connected with, or arising out of, the collection by Government, or the enforcement by Government of any process for the recovery of, land-revenue or any sum recoverable as an arrear of land revenue;
(xvi) any claim to set aside, on any ground other than fraud, a sale for the recovery of an arrear of land- revenue or any sum recoverable as an arrear of land revenue;
(xvii) the amount of, or the liability of any person to pay, any cess, fines, costs or other charge imposed under this Act; (xviii) any claim for partition of an estate or holding, or any question connected with or arising out of, proceedings for partition, not being a question as to title in any of the property of which partition is sought;
(xix) any question as to the allotment of land on the partition of an estate or holding, or as to the distribution of land subject by establis hed custom to periodical redistribution or as to the distribution of land-revenue on the partition of an estate or holding or on a periodical re-distribution of land;
(xx) any question connection with or arising out of or relating to any procee dings for the determination of boundaries of estate subject to river action under the provisions of this Act:
(xxi) any claim regarding boundaries fixed under any of the enactments hereby repealed or any other law for the time being in force, or to set aside any order passed by a competent officer under any such law with regard to boundary marks.
11. From perusal of above reproduced provisions of law, particularly provision contained in para (vi) of aforesaid provisions, it reveals that the Civil Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the instant matter/suit. As respondent No.5 has cancelled mutation, therefore, proper remedy available to the appellant is that he should have filed an appeal against the order of the respondent No.5 in the higher revenue forum instead of filing Civil Suit in the trial court and after exhausting revenue forum the petitioner if failed to get redress his grievances may file suit in the trial court.
12. In the sequel of above discussion, I am of the considered view that both the learned courts below have not committed any illegality or irregularity while rejecting suit/plaint of the appellant under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C., through the impugned judgments. Concurrent findings recorded by both the courts below are in accordance with law which cannot be upset by this Court by invoking its appellate or revisional jurisdiction.
13. In view of the above, this Civil Second Appeal is devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed and the impugned judgment dated 23-09-2019 passed by the learned First Appellate Court is hereby upheld. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Record and proceedings of the trial court and the First Appellate Court may be remitted back. File.