On 12-1-1980 Allah Din respondent filed suit for declaration to the effect that orders dated 4-3-1974 of the District Collector, Bahawalnagar and order dated 23-7-1979 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Bahawalpur, are illegal and ineffective qua his rights. He requested for grant of permanent injunction as a consequential relief.
2.The facts leading to the filing of the suit, briefly, are that the suit land was given on lease to Allah Din respondent/plaintiff for 5 years under Grow More Food Scheme on 5-3-1960. On 12-2-1967, the respondent/plaintiff was allowed to get the land through private sale treaty scheme. On 4-3-1974, District Collector declined to grant proprietary rights to him on the ground that he had failed to fulfill the conditions of the lease. The previous sale by way of private treaty was recalled and the suit land was confiscated in favour of the State. The District Collector further directed for the ejectment of the respondent. The suit was resisted whereon following issues were framed:- (1)Whether the land in dispute is situated in Colony Area? If so, what is its effect? OPD.
(2)Whether the orders dated 4-3-1974 passed by the District Collector and order dated 23-7-1979 passed by Additional Commissioner, Bahawalpur are illegal, invalid, against facts and ineffective against the rights of the plaintiff? OPP.
(3)Relief.
3. The parties led evidence. The trial Court decreed the suit on 18-3-1987. The appeal filed by the Province of Punjab against this judgment and decree was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bahawalnagar on.26-9-1988. Hence this revision.
4. Before me, learned counsel has challenged the findings of the Courts below on both the issues.
He argued that under section 36 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912, the civil Court had no jurisdiction to grant the declaration and the consequential relief prayed for; that the Courts below had not read document Ex.P.4 which shows that the appeal against the order of the District Collector was filed by the respondent/plaintiff before Additional Commissioner, Bahawalpur, after 2 years, 1 month and 29 days of the order of the District Collector, that no application for condonation of delay for filing appeal before Additional Commissioner was given by the respondent/plaintiff and that since the appeal before the Additional Commissioner was hopelessly barred by time, therefore, no exception could be taken to his order dated 23-7-1979.
5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner with care. I do not agree with him. I find that the respondent/plaintiff had challenged the legality of the orders passed by the District Collector and the Additional Commissioner. He had prayed the Court to declare the orders passed by them to be void, illegal and ineffective upon his rights. The mere fact that the suit land is situated within the limits of colony area will not oust the jurisdiction of the Court to examine the illegality of the orders impugned before it. It may be noted that in the written statement it has been stated that since the suit land was situated in colony area, therefore, the civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. The Courts below have applied conscious mind to the relevant evidence and circumstances appearing in the case and have given sound and cogent reasons in support of the conclusions arrived at by them. I do not see any illegality or material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the judgments of the Courts below. The submissions made by the learned counsel do not make out a case for interference, in exercise of the revisional powers of this Court under Section 115 C.P.C. With the well-reasoned concurrent findings of the Courts below.
6.For what has been said above, the petition is dismissed in limine.