1. CHAUDHARY KHALID RASHEED, J. The captioned writ petition has been filed under Article 44 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution, 1974, whereby judgment dated 24.08.2023 passed by learned District Judge Muzaffarabad has been assailed.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated facts and grounds already taken in the writ petition and vehemently argued that petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and perpetual injunction in the terms that suit land has wrongly been entered as crown land in the revenue record which is owned by the petitioner/plaintiff, thus the civil Court was competent to pass such declaration but the learned District Judge Muzaffarabad failed to understand the controversy and erroneously rejected the suit under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. in a revision petition filed by private respondents herein through the impugned order which is not sustainable.
3. The learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned judgment on all counts and prayed for the dismissal of the instant writ petition.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, gone through the record of the case with utmost care and caution.
5. Law requires that an incompetent suit should be buried in its inception in order to avoid parties from agony of trial and to save the precious time of the Court. Under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C., the Court is competent to reject plaint if the same does not disclose cause of action, or if the same is barred by any law.In the instant case, plaintiff/petitioner claimed that land comprising survey No.233 measuring 1 kanal and 7 marlas and survey No.383 situated in village Mohri has wrongly been entered as crown land which in fact is owned by plaintiff as per old record and defendants Nos.1 to 5 have got no concern with the suit land but changed the nature of the land, hence the revenue record is liable to be corrected. Defendants took the stand in their application filed for rejection of the plaint that the suit land is crown land out of which 1 kanal and 10 marlas of land has been sanctioned in favour of defendant No.1 who has sold the same through sale deed dated 22.03.2004 and mutation No.565 has been attested, therefore the Civil Court has got no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. It is an admitted position that the suit land is entered as crown land and under section 172 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 the jurisdiction of Civil Courts in matters which fall within the jurisdiction of revenue officer has been barred. For proper appreciation section 172(1) of the Act, is reproduced as under: "172. Exclusion of jurisdiction of Civil Courts in matters within the jurisdiction of Revenue.
6. Officers.---(1) Except as otherwise provided by this Act, no civil Court shall have jurisdiction in any matter which Government, the Board of Revenue, or any Revenue Officer, is empowered by this Act to dispose of, or take cognizance of matter in which Government, the Board of Revenue, or any Revenue Officer exercises any powers vested in it or him by or under this Act.
7. Under section 172(2)(vi) of the Act the civil Court shall not exercise jurisdiction over any of the matter regarding correction of any entry in the record of right, periodical record and register of mutations. For ready reference section 172(2)(vi) is reproduced as under:- "(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of sub-section (1), a Civil Court shall not exercise jurisdiction over any of the following matters namely:--
(vi) the correction of any entry in a record-of-rights or periodical record, or register of mutations."
8. Similarly, under section 10 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Registration of Nautors and Grant of Khalsa Land Ordinance, 1974 the jurisdiction of civil Court has been barred on any matter for which the revenue officer is competent to dispose of the same. Section 10 of the Ordinance is reproduced as under: "Bar of jurisdiction of civil courts.---No civil court shall have jurisdiction on any matter which the Government or any revenue officer is competent to dispose of under this Ordinance and shall not take cognizance of the matter in which the Government or any revenue officer exercises any powers vested in it or in him by or under this Ordinance or under Government Order No.282/57.
(ii) No civil court shall be competent to issue a temporary injunction in respect of any matter referred to in subsection (i) above."
9. It is an admitted position that land comprising survey No.383 min measuring 1 kanal and 10 marlas has been sanctioned in favour of defendant No.1 and mutation No.34 has also been attested, hence if the petitioner/plaintiff was aggrieved from the sanction of Khalsa Land in favour of defendant No.1, he may assail the same by filing proper proceedings under the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, so the learned District Judge rightly observed that the civil Court has got no jurisdictional competence to entertain the suit rather the same is barred under section 172 of the Act. If the claim of the plaintiff/petitioner that his owned land has been entered as crown land even then the revenue officers are competent to make correction in the revenue record which is the proper forum for the purpose.
10. It is also relevant to mention that plaintiff is not in possession of the suit land, hence a decree for perpetual injunction can also not be issued in his favour because for granting decree for perpetual injunction, it is necessary to establish that plaintiff is in possession of the suit land as being legal owner and in absence of such stance a suit for perpetual injunction cannot be decreed. The learned District Judge has also rightly observed that if the land of plaintiff/petitioner has been reduced in the revenue record the proper forum for redressal of his grievance is revenue authorities and the civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain a suit for declaration regarding crown land. I do not find any illegality or legal infirmity in the impugned judgment which is based on proper appreciation of law on the subject.
11. The sum and substance of the above discussion is, finding no essence the instant writ petition is hereby dismissed in limine.