' This judgment shall dispose of the following eight Regular Second Appeals Nos.--
(i) R.S.A. 402-72/LHR.
(ii) R.S.A. 403-72/LHR.
(iii) R.S.A 404-72/LHR
(iv) R.S.A. 405-72/LHR.
(v) R.S.A. 406-72/LHR.
(vi) R.S.A. 407-72/LHR.
(vii) R.S.A. 408-72/LHR.
(viii) R.S.A. 433-72/BWP.
' The points involved in these appeals are the same, and arise out of similar facts, identical issues, and decrees and judgments pronounced thereupon by the trial Court and thereafter in appeal by the 1st Appellate Court.
2. These R.S.As. Are directed against the judgments, dated 18th November, 1971, passed by the learned District Judge, Bahawalpur, whereby he accepted the appeals of the present respondents and decreed the suits of the respondents/ plaintiffs for a declaration that the plaintiffs are the owners in possession of the Ahatas in dispute and the order of cancellation passed by the Additional Commissioner, dated 30th of September, 1967, is illegal, without jurisdiction, void and ineffective upon the rights of the plaintiffs, and that the plaintiffs had become the full Owners of the Ahatas in dispute with consequential relief of mandatory injunction restraining the respondent (Province of Punjab, present appellant) from interfering with the plaintiffs' possession thereof.
3. Brief facts of the appeals are that the Ahatas in dispute were allotted by the Collector vide order, dated 26th April, 1967, and the sale price of Rs,400 was deposited in the Government Treasury and the possession was handed over to the plaintiffs/respondents under the order of the Collector.
4. Thereafter, one Bashir Ahmed filed an appeal against that allotment whereupon the Additional Commissioner by the impugned order cancelled the said allotments on 30th September, 1967.
Therefore, the suits stated above were filed by the respondents/plaintiffs and were contested by the then respondent (now appellant), Government of the Punjab and issues were framed which are as follows.
(i) Whether this Court has jurisdiction to try the suit? OPP.
(ii) Whether the Ahata in question was allotted to the plaintiff? OPP.
(iii) Whether the plaintiff paid the entire price of the Ahata and what is its effect?
(iv) If issue No,2 is in the affirmative, whether the allotment was made before 'Eezadi' lime was sanctioned? OPD.
(v) If issue No,4 is in the affirmative, what is its effect on the allotment of Ahata to the plaintiff? OPD.
(vi) Relief.
5. The learned trial Court vide its judgments and decrees, dated 22nd February, 1971, dismissed the suit, whereby issue No,1 was decided in favour of the then respondent/present appellant. The issues Nos.2 and 3 were decided in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs. Issues Nos.4 and 5 were also decided in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs, and it was only on the point of jurisdiction that the learned trial Court held that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and grant relief prayed for and thus dismissed the suits. Thereafter, the present respondents preferred appeals before the District Judge, Bahawalpur, who accepted the said appeals and decreed the suits of the respondents/plaintiffs vide judgments and decrees, dated 18th November, 1971. Hence these R.S.As.
Were filed by the present appellant, the Government of the Punjab, and were admitted on 19-6- 1972.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the allotment of `Ahata' was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Revenue Authorities and, therefore, the Civil Court's jurisdiction was barred under Section 36 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912. In this repect, he further contended that the respondents had contested the orders of cancellation of the allotment by the Additional Commissioner (Revenue) upto the Board of Revenue and had failed, and that thereafter they had not challenged the final order in their suits before the Civil Court.
7. The learned counsel for the respondents, however, points out that this ground was taken up by the present appellant in their written statement before, the trial Judge, but no issue was framed to this effect nor was it urged to oppose the appeal before the lower appellate Court by the Government of the Punjab (the present appellant), and that this is not a ground even in the present R.S.As. Therefore, he argued that it will be deemed to have been given up by the appellant and it cannot be raised at this stage. The learned counsel for the respondents further argued that as regards the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in matters pertaining to the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912, it has been held by the superior Courts in their various decisions that the Civil Court has the jurisdiction. To support his contention, he relied upon D.B. Case Jiwana v. Mst. Sahbi (PLD 1954 Lahore 253), wherein it was held that the Civil Court had the jurisdiction to decide whether act done validly under the Act or what is the legal effect of an order validly passed under the Act. The next contention of the learned counsel for the respondents was that as the respondents had deposited the money and as that was the only condition of the allotment of land for Ahatas, therefore, the allottees had become full owners of the said allotments and thereafter the,Revenue Authorities had no cause under the relevant law and rules to interfere with their possession and ownership. To support his contention reliance was placed on Karim Dad v. Arif Ali and another (PLD 1978 Lahore 679) which laid down that once the conditions are fulfilled, the proprietary rights stand conferred. This case referred to a number of authorities on this point and on the point as to when the Civil Court has jurisdiction under the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912. To support his contention that the Revenue Authorities could not cancel the allotment made after the condition thereof having been fulfilled, the learned counsel further relied upon Rehmat Ullah and others v.
Muhammad Ismail and others (PLD 1958 W.F. (Rev) ) 77), which is to the effect that the date of deposit and acceptance by Government of purchase money is date of acquiring proprietary rights.
Deed of sale is not necessary. This authority had relied upon the decision reported as Faiz Ali, deceased, represented by Mst. Nur Jan etc. v. Mst. Rana Jan and 2 others (PLD 1956 Lahore 94).
8. The next argument of the learned counsel for the respondents was that the land covered by the Colonization of Government Lands Act is governed by the said statute and if there are departmental instructions in respect of the said land and those departmental instructions are in conflict with provisions of the said statute, then in accordance with the established principle of law, the statute shall override the said instructions. To support his contention he relied upon Abdur Rehman v. Secretary to the Government of West Pakistan, Colony Department and others (1980 CLC 1042). Therefore, he further contended that as it was for the Collector to designate a certain piece and parcel of the land under the Colonization of. Government Lands Act to be Chiragah, it was the Collector alone Who could redesignate the same for allotment as Ahatas which in the instant case was duly done by the Collector concerned, and furthermore that once the sale price had been deposited and the possession handed over to the allottees/respondents, then in accordance with the said statute no other Revenue Authorities even superior to the Collector could intervene in this matter and reverse the decision of the Collector. He further argued in this respect that the appeal filed by one =Bashir Ahmed was not competent and that the learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue) was not empowered to deal with the same as the right of appeal has to be specifically conferred by the statute. Therefore, in the circumstances and facts of the present cases the allotments cannot be cancelled because the land for the `Ahatas' was allotted out of the `Chiragah!
9. The learned first appellate Court while accepting the appeals had held that the respondents/plaintiffs had become the full proprietors of the disputed Ahatas and had ceased 'to be tenants of the Government, therefore, they were no longer covered by the provisions of Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912, and that it was within the competence of the Collector to change the `Eezadi' line as was admitted in the written statements, and that no evidence was brought on the record to show that the Collector was legally incompetent to accord permission for the Tezadi' line and thus make allotment of the Ahatas. The learned District Judge has further held that there is no evidence on the record to show that the Collector was not competent to make allotment of Ahatas out of the Chiragah's land, and, therefore, it cannot be held that his order was void ab initio, therefore, the Additional Commissioner was not justified to cancel the allotments. For these reasons the learned first appellate Court had accepted the appeals and set aside the decrees of the learned trial Judge and granted a decree in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs as prayed for.
10. These findings of the learned first appellate Court have not been challenged by the present appellants. Therefore, these findings are also upheld in the present appeal. The only point pressed in this appeal is that of lack of jurisdiction of the Civil Court to try the suits on the ground that the matter of allotment was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Revenue Authorities. The learned counsel for the respondents has dealt with this point at length and his arguments are found to be pertinent and establish beyond doubt that the Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertian and adjudicate upon the' present suits. This is an established principle of law and is supported by the authorities cited by the respondents.
11. In view of the above and as the learned counsel for the appellant had based this appeal primarily on the point of jurisdiction and as it has been held that the Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain and decide the suits, therefore, I find no merit in these appeals and the same are dismissed without any order as to costs.