This revision application involves the question whether on the coming into force of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, suits for partition of agricultural land pending in Civil Courts were liable to be dismissed or transferred to Revenue Authorities for decision in accordance with provisions of this new Act. To appreciate this question, a few facts may be given. The respondent No. 1 filed a suit for partition and mesne profits with regard to certain agricultural lands situated in Taluka Tando Allahyar. The suit was filed in the Court of the Civil Judge, First Class, Hyderabad, on 4-8-1967. The petitioner and respondents 2 to 4, who were defendants in the suit filed their written statements in which, it is admitted at the Bar, they questioned the title of the respondent No. 1 to the lands in dispute in the suit. On the coming into force of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, with effect from 1st January 1968, the petitioner made an application under Order VII, rule 11, C. P. C.
For rejection of the plaint on the ground that the new Act contained provisions which conferred exclusive jurisdiction in suits for partition on Revenue Authorities. By judgment, dated 25-9-1969, this application was dismissed and against this dis--missal, the petitioner has come in revision to the High Court.
2. Mr. Abdus Sattar Shaikh at the very outset of his arguments, placed reliance on the judgment of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Adnan Afzal v. Capt. Sher Afzal (PLD 1969 SC 197) in which, referring to the controversy with regarded to the retroac--tive action of substantive and procedural laws, their Lordships observed that a statute purporting to transfer jurisdiction over certain causes of action may operate retroactively, as this is what is meant by saying that a change of forum by law is retrospective, being a matter of procedure only. However, this view was qualified by the further observations of their Lordships that if any existing rights are affected or giving of retroactive effect causes inconvenience or injustice, then Courts will not, even in the case of procedural statute favour interpretation giving retros--pective effect to the statute. In the circumstances of the case before their Lordships, retrospective effect was given to the statute, that is, the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, as the provisions therein were found more beneficial than those contained in section 488 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
3. Thus, the question, which arise in the case before me are --(1) Whether it is the intention of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act that its provisions, particularly those relating to disputes with regard to partition of land, and the forum for adjudication of these disputes should operate retrospectively, and (2) whether the retroactive action goes to the extent of taking away the jurisdiction of the civil Courts even in pending actions for partition of the agricultural lands. To appreciate the significance of these questions, reference may be made to the relevant provisions of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, that is to say, sections 135, 139, 141, 142, 161 and 172. Section 135 confers a right on a joint owner of land to apply to a Revenue Officer for partition of his share in the land, provided such joint owner complies with any of the conditions contained in clauses (a),
(b) and (c) of this section. Under section 139, the Revenue Officer may, for good and sufficient cause, refuse partition, it which case no remedy is provided to civil Courts, but an appeal is permissible to the next higher Revenue Officer under section 161 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act. Under section 141 (1) if a question of title is involved with regard to any property for which partition is sought, the Revenue Officer may decline to g rant the application for partition until the question has been determined by a competent Court, or he ma` himself proceed to determine the question as though he were such a Court, in which latter event, his order on the question of title only is subject to appeal to the District Court and to the High Court. But his orders, which do not involve adjudication as to question of title, but merely deal with partition or the mode thereof, are subject to one appeal to the next higher Revenue Officer under section 142 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act. Under section 172, the jurisdiction of civil Courts is excluded from matters which the Government, the Board of Revenue or any Revenue Officer is empowered by the Act to dispose of and, in particular, from disputes with regard to partition of an estate or holding or any question connected with or arising out of proceedings to partition, not being a question as to title in any of the properties of which partition is sought. These provisions would show that exclusive jurisdiction has not been conferred on Revenue Officers with regard to claims for partition in which a question of title is also involved. Such claims may be directed by the Revenue Officer to be determined by a civil Court of competent Jurisdiction. In view of these provisions, the view cannot be taken that even pending actions for partition, involving questions of title have to be dismissed by the civil Court or transferred to the competent Revenue Officers. Assuming that the intention of the enactment is that even pending causes of this nature should be adjudicated by the Revenue Officers, then the question for consideration would fit whether the rule laid down by their Lordshships in the judgment cited above, that retrospective effect should not be given If such course causes inconvenience or Injustice, should not be applied to the circumstances of the present case. Here we have a claim for partition in which the plaintiff's very title to the land in dispute is questioned by the defendants. Suppose the plaintiff were to withdraw and file his claim before the Revenue Officer, it is quite possible that he may be directed by the Revenue Officer to have his title determined by a civil Court of competent jurisdiction, in which case the plaintiff' will have to come again to the civil Court. In my view such a procedure would place considerable burden on the plaintiff is calculated to lead to inconvenience and injustice. Then, in the case from which the present petition has arisen, thus claim for partition is coupled with the claim for mesne profits. It is the admitted position that the Revenue Officers have no jurisdiction, under the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, to grant mesne profits in claims for partition of land. If the suit is withdrawn or dismissed on the ground that retrossective effect has to be given to the provisions of the Act, then the plaintiff may lose his remedy to claim mesne profits altogether, as by the time his title is determined by the Revenue Officer, considerable period of time may have elapsed even to make his claim barred by limitation as far as the remedy in the civil Court is concerned. Another pertinent question in this connection is whether the rule laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court with regard to change of forum for pending causes, would also apply to cases where causes pending in regular Courts of law are required to be determined by, what can be said, to be quasi-judicial tribunals or whether this rule applies where the change of forum merely means this that instead of one set of Court, it is another set of regularly consti--tuted Courts which have to adjudicate the question at issue. In the judgment of their Lordships referred to above, it will be noted that the jurisdiction, which was enjoyed by the Criminal Courts under section 488 of the Criminal Procedure Code, became vested in the Family Courts, which are regularly con--stituted Courts of law, and their Lordships found that the provisions of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act are more beneficial for the claimants than those contained in section 488, Criminal Procedure Code. In my view, it is very doubtful if the rule as to change of forum with regard to pending causes can be conveniently applied where administrative or quasi judicial tribunals are set up and replace regularly constituted Courts, to determine the questions of title between the litigants.
4. For all these reasons, I am of the view that causes pending in civil Courts with regard to partition of land and involving questions of title were not bit on the corning into force of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, and that these causes have to be determined by the Courts were they were pending when it is enactment took effect. In this view of the matter, the order of tire civil Court, impugned in this petition, was a proper order and no exception can be taken to it. Accordingly, the revision application is dismissed.