' Respondent, claiming to be a quasi-"permanent allottee of Khasra No, 64/2/4 bearing an area of 9 Marlas in Village Baseerpur, Tehsil Depalpur, District Montgomery (Sahiwal), filed a suit for possession of 5 Marlas land out of it, which was stated to have been illegally occupied by the defendants. Appellants denied his claim and contested the suit by pleading that this land was allotted to them on 17-2-1953 by a Naib-Tehsildar and on its basis tley have constructed a Flour Mill there. It was also claimed that the plaintiff does not have a cause of action to file the suit and jurisdiction of the Civil Court for trial thereof was also objected. These objections were set down in issues No,2 and 1 respectively, and the only other issue No,3 related to the question of encroachment. In the course of trial, apart from producing the documents Exhs. P.1 to P.11, plaintiff produced the Patwari Muhammad Bashir as P.W.1 who appeared in the Court with the original Register R.L. II and stated that 15 acres of land had been confirmed on 31-12-1951 in the name of the plaintiff which included the suit land also. The fact of unauthorised occupation by the defendant was deposed to by P.Ws. 2 and 3. It may be mentioned here that before filing the present suit the plaintiff had filed a similar suit in the Court of Tehsildar Pakpattan which was decreed in his favour but was dismissed by the Collector by upholding the defendant-appellants' objection with regard to jurisdiction. Trial Court decided all the three issues in favour of the plaintiff and decreed his suit on 24-5-1966. An appeal thereagainst filed by the defendants having been dismissed by a learned Additional. District Judge by affirming the trial Court's findings on all the three issues, they have maintained this second appeal.
2. 'Learned counsel for appellants has argued that the plaintiff being only a confirmed allottee of the land in dispute, the same cannot be treated to have been vested in him absolutely by the mere operation of law and reliance of the two Courts below on Section 16 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act is inapt in so far as there has not been led any evidence with regard to payment of fees prescribed by the Government and no order of permanent settlement, as envisaged by Section 15 thereof, has been produced and that since it was his own case of the plaintiff that there stood construction raised on the land in dispute, therefore, the same cannot be considered agricultural land and will rather be deemed to have been transferred permanently to the defendant-appellants by virtue of the provisions made in Settlement Scheme No, VII framed under the Displaced Persons (Compensations & Rehabilitation) Act. These contentions do not have any merit because the plaintiff-respondent having been proved to be a confirmed allottee of the land in dispute, it was not necessary for him to have further proved on the basis of evidence also that the same had beien settled on bin) permanently because with the confirmed allotment he stood invested with a right to possess and hold the land in dispute. Further argument in the same strain raised by the learned counsel for the appellants to the effect that in absence of permanent settlement jurisdiction of the Civil Courts will be deemed to have been barred under section 25 of the Act is also equally misconceived, in so far as the matter of unauthorised occupation of erstwhile evacuee lands, which has not been provided for to be dealt with by either the Government or an Office appointed under the Act, would not fall under section 25 thereof and muchless is there any action taken or intended to be taken in exercis of the power conferred by or under that Act which may be uncle attack in this litigation and reference on the point may aptly be mad to Syed Ali Moazzam v. M.A. Effandi and others PLD 1965 Lah.
193.
3. Arguments with regard to the land in dispute being not) agricultural and its liability to be governed under Settlement Scheme No, VII are unsustainable upon the case set up in the written statement of the appellants wherein, in answer to the plaintiff's allegation about the unauthorised occupation by the defendants in the years 1959-60, it has been pleaded that they had entered into its possession in the year 1953 in pursuance of some allotment order made by a Naib-Tehsildar orY 17-2-1953. It is inconceivable as to how may the change of character of the property subsequent to that date be of any significance. Equally unfounded is the allied contention of the learned counsel that the property could be governed by Settlement Scheme No, VII because according to the case set up by the parties themselves there was no structure raised thereon by the evacuees and muchless is there any evidence led with regard to the other conditions necessary for the application of Settlement Scheme No, VII, therefore, even this contention has to be repelled as being completely devoid of substance.
4. Upshot of the foregoing is that there is no force in this second appeal which is accordingly dismissed with costs.