This Civil Revision arises from the judgment/decree dated the 29th of March, 1987, of the learned Additional District Judge, Vehari, whereby he accepted the respondent-plaintiff's appeal, set aside dismissal of his suit ordered by the trial Court, and instead decreed it.
2. The land in question held by one Abdul Aziz under a ten--year lease (Kharif-1968 till Rabi-1978) was resumed on the 16th of May, 1974, by the Collector on account of the default in paying the lease money by him and was allotted on the 18th of May, 1974, to the respondent-plaintiff Rana under the Grow More Food Scheme: Abdul Aziz preferred an appeal against the order of resumption dated the 16th of May, 1974, and the same was set aside by the Additional Commissioner observing that the respondent may be either allotted some alternate area, or he may wait till the lease held by Abdul Aziz expired. The respondent chose the second course and applied for delivery of possession which, in fact, was delivered to him on the 23rd of July, 1972. Abdul Aziz, however, challenged the said order initially before a Civil Court and then before the Additional Commissioner who remanded to the Collector for fresh decision presumably after verifying the eligibility. The Collector this time resumed the land vide his order dated the 8th of February, 1981, holding that since the respondent was already having another allotment under a Well Sinking Scheme, he was ineligible to get allotment under' the Grow More Food Scheme simultaneously.
3. The respondent assailed the aforesaid order in the present suit on the ground that since the basic allotment dated the 18th of May, 1974 made in his favour some seven years earlier was not disturbed, he had every right to avail it; and that the order of remand under which the Collector was acting did not authorise him to go to the extent of verifying his eligibility which indeed had already been approved two-three times and could have been, if at all, cancelled only by the Board of Revenue.
4. The suit was resisted by the petitioner Province pleading that the respondent was found ineligible to get double allotment and that the order of resumption was perfectly justified. It was claimed in addition that there was no cause of action available to the plaintiff; nor had the Civil Court jurisdiction to call in question the order, and still further that the plaintiff was barred by estoppel.
5. Appropriate issues on these pleadings were framed. The trial Court dismissed the suit while the lower appellate Court decreed it primarily on the ground that no policy letter was produced to show that allotment under two different schemes was forbidden and secondly that the Collector could not review his predecessor's order dated the 18th of May, 1974, whereby the land was allotted to the respondent. He relied upon Jamal Din v. The Province of Punjab and others 1985 CLC 2387 to support the view that the Collector could not review the earlier order without seeking permission.
The third ground finding favour with the learned Additional District Judge was that under Proviso to section 16 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, .1912, the respondent's possession being more than three years old had the effect of protecting his allotment against resumption on any false information about his eligibility. He took the Collector's order to be insupportable at law and hence open to scrutiny by a Civil Court.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner-Province stressed that section 36 of the Act totally barred a Civil Court to call in question the order of resumption of the land: The contention was not without force. Section 36 ibid clearly provides so. Apart. From it, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was barred for another reason too: Section 7 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act provided that the Land Revenue Act, 1967, applied to proceedings taken thereunder.. It manifestly envisaged that orders passed by the Collector could have been challenged before the Commissioner and then before the Board of Revenue. The respondent did not prefer any appeal before the Commissioner or Revision before the Board and straightaway came to the Civil Court. This he could not do as the basic rule is to always first exhaust the remedies provided by a Statute in any special hierarchy. In Sultan A.I Nanghiana v. Nur Hussain AIR (36) 1949 Lah. 131, Central Government through Income Tax Officer, Dera Ismail Khan v. Sher Muhammad Khan and others PLD 1971 Pesh. 153 and Abdul Aziz v. Syed Arif A.I and 6 others PLD 1978 Lah. 441, civil suits brought without first availing remedies at various tiers of the special hierarchy were held incompetent. Thus, even if it be accepted that the order dated 8th of February, 1981, of the Collector was bad in law, the forum to get it corrected was the Commissioner and the Board of Revenue. Without having recourse to them in the first instance, the suit was barred. The learned Additional District Judge lost sight of this aspect and erroneously held that the infringement of various provisions of law e.g. Proviso to section 16 or absence of permission to review the earlier order, or of restriction against double allotment would confer jurisdiction on Civil Court to interfere with it. Learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff could not offer any plausible explanation as to how his suit could be saved of the rule cited above. Indeed it was a well entrenched principle which precludes discretionary relief of a declaration in matters which could be effectively disposed of by various organ." envisaged by a special Statute creating the right sought to be redressed.
7. The revision petition is allowed, the impugned judgment and decree are set aside and the respondent's suit is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.