' This revision petition has arisen out of a suit instituted by the petitioner for a declaration that order dated 28-3-1974 passed by the Collector, Lyallpur (now Faisalabad) cancelling the allotment of land measuring one acre, four Kanals and six Marlas in Square No. 6 situated in Chak No. 335/G-B., Tehsil Toba Tek Singh, was illegal and without jurisdiction with a consequential relief restraining the respondent from interfering with his possession over the suit land.
2. The petitioner was allotted 76 Kanals and six Marlas of land in Square No. 7 (now square No. 6) in Killas Nos. 13/1, 14/1 and 15/1 in Chak No. 335/G.B. under the Ejected Tenants Scheme. He was required to pay the price of the aforementioned land by instalments under the terms of the lease.
After he had paid nineteen instalments towards the price of the land, he was informed by the Collector vide order dated 28-3-1974 that the land measuring 1 Acre, four Kanals and six Marlas being in excess of his entitlement had been resumed. The petitioner challenged the aforementioned order in Court. The suit instituted by him was contested by the respondent inter alia on the ground that the petitioner was not entitled to acquire proprietary rights in land exceeding eight acres in Area and that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the petitioner's suit.
From the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the following issues:-
(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get proprietary rights of the suit land?;
(2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the permanent injunction as prayed?;
(3) Whether the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit?; and
(4) Relief.
3. After recording the evidence of the parties, the learned trial Court heard the parties counsel. It was found by the learned trial Court that the petitioner was not entitled to acquire proprietary rights in land exceeding eight Acres in area and consequently he could not be granted injunction by the Court to retain the said excess area. It was further held by the learned trial Court that since the order passed by the Collector cancelling the allotment of the excess area was neither illegal nor without jurisdiction, the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. On the basis of the above findings, the petitioner's suit was dismissed. As noticed earlier, the petitioner's appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court also failed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that there was no embargo on the acquisition of proprietary rights in land exceeding 8 acres in Area in 1956 when the petitioner was allotted land measuring 76 Kanals 6 Marlas under the Ejected Tenants Scheme. It was in 1971 that instructions were issued by the Provincial Government vide letter No. 1285-70/251-CL.V, dated 22-1-1971 which placed restrictions on the acquisition of proprietary rights in respect of land in excess of 64 Kanals.
The aforementioned instructions were not applicable to the land allotted to the petitioner because the same were meant only for such allotments as were made after the issuance of the said instructions on 22-1-1971. The learned counsel for the petitioner has, in this connection, referred to the decision of this Court in Writ Petition No. 2017/1977 where the application of the instructions contained in the letter dated 22-1-1971 mentioned above was considered. It was held that the aforementioned instructions could not be applied retrospectively to the rights already accrued. The petitioner in the instant case was eligible to acquire proprietary rights in the entire land allotted to him in 1956 as he had fulfilled the conditions laid down in the Scheme under which the land was allotted to him. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the petitioner had already paid 19 instalments towards the price of the land and only one instalment had to be paid by him when the impugned order cancelling the allotment in excess of 64 Kanals was passed by the Collector.
Learned counsel for the respondent has conceded that the impugned order was passed by the Collector in pursuance of the instructions contained in letter No. 1285-70-251-CL.V, dated 22-1-1971.
He has also admitted that the petitioner was allotted land under the Ejected Tenants Scheme in 1956, when the aforementioned instructions had not been issued by the Government.
5. In view of the legal position stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the instructions contained in the Provincial Government letter No. 1285-70-251-CL.V, dated 22-1-1971 cannot be given effect to restrospectively to the cases of allotment of land made prior to the issuance of the said instructions as decided by this Court in Writ Petition No. 2017/1977 on 30-9-1979, the impugned order dated 28-3-1974 cancelling the petitioner's allotment of land to the extent of 1 Acre 4 Kanals and 6 Marlas is not sustainable and the petitioner is entitled to acquire proprietary rights in the aforementioned land as well after payment of the balance of the price due from him. The findings of the Courts below under issue No. 1 are accordingly reversed and issue No. 1 is decided in petitioner's favour. The Civil Courts have jurisdiction to examine the legality or otherwise of the impugned order passed by the Collector in the instant case and the provisions of section 36 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912, which excludes jurisdiction of Civil Courts in matters arising under the Act are not attracted to the facts of the case. The findings of the Courts below under issues Nos. 2 and 3 are also reversed.
' As a result of what has been stated above this revision petition is accepted and the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below are set aside. The petitioner's suit is decreed and the parties are left to bear their own costs.