' On 1-4-1986, Muhammad Ikhtiar petitioner filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he was entitled to have grant of proprietary rights of the suit land vide Notification No,1925-83/1253 CLI dated 20-4-1983 and the orders dated 13-8-1984 of District Collector, Multan and dated 24-3-1986 of Commissioner, Multan Division Multan were illegal, void and ineffective upon his rights. The suit was resisted whereon 2 issues were framed. The parties led evidence. The trial Court dismissed the suit on 31-5-1989. The appeal filed by the petitioner against this judgment and decree was dismissed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Multan on 15-9-1990, hence this revision.
2. Before me, the learned counsel has challenged the findings of the Courts below on issues Nos. 1 and 2, which are as under:-- ISSUES:
(1) "Whether the suit is hit by section 36 of the Colonization Act? OPD.
(2) Whether the impugned orders dated 13-8-1984 passed by District Collector and dated 24-3- 1986 passed by Commissioner, Multan are illegal, void, without jurisdiction, with no effect on the rights of the plaintiff and as such the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration alongwith mandatory injunction prayed for? OPD.
(3) Relief."
' As for issue No,1, the learned counsel submitted that the Civil Court has jurisdiction to examine the validity of the orders passed by District Collector and Commissioner, Multan Division Multan. On issue No,2, the learned counsel argued that the District Collector and Commissioner, Multan both have refused to grant proprietary rights of the disputed land to the petitioner for the reason that he had not cultivated the suit land before Kharif 1980. The learned counsel was of the view that since the possession of the suit land was delivered to the petitioner in the year 1979, therefore, he was in the cultivating possession of the same before Kharif 1980, as the expression "cultivating possession" does not necessarily means the land actually, and physically in cultivation but means the physical possession of the tenant with right to cultivate. Reliance has been placed on PLD 1979 Rev. (Punjab)
13.
3. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel with care, I have not been able to persuade myself to agree with him. The Courts below have nowhere held that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to examine the validity of the orders passed by the District Collector and the Commissioner Multan Division Multan. It has rather examined the validity of the orders passed by the District Collector and Commissioner, Multan. While discussing issue No,1 the trial Court was of the view that since the orders were passed within the four corners of their jurisdiction, so, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was barred. I am convinced that no exception can be taken to the view of the matter taken by the Courts below.
4. Assuming that the expression "cultivating possession" means the physical possession of a tenant with a right to cultivate, the question for consideration and determination would be as to whether or not the physical possession of the suit land was physically delivered to the petitioner before Kharif 1980. There is nothing in evidence to show that the physical possession of the land was delivered to the petitioner in the year 1979. Copy of Roznamcha Waqiati with regard to the delivery of the possession of the disputed land to the petitioner has not been brought on the file of this case. The documents Ex.P1, copy of the Jamabandi Ex.P2 and copy of report entered by the Patwari in Roznamcha Waqiati dated 22-11-1979 do not prove the delivery of the possession of the suit land to the petitioner. The Courts below have applied their conscious mind to the relevant evidence and the relevant provisions of law and have given sound and cogent reasons in support of the conclusions arrived at by them. I do not see any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional defect in the impugned judgments and decrees.
' Pursuant to the above discussion, there being no merit, the revision is dismissed in limine.