' This revision petition arises out of a suit for declaration filed by respondent No,1, on 8-5-1978 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Vehari. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 3-2-1986. On an appeal preferred by respondent No,1 the learned Additional District Judge reversed the decree of the trial Court and decreed the suit vide his judgment and decree dated 26-10-1987.
2. The petitioners are legal representatives of Faqir Muhammad who was allotted land bearing Killa Nos.1 to 5, 6/1, 15/2, 16/2,17/2, 18/2, 19/2, 20/2 and 21 to 26 under the Islamabad Oustees Scheme on 20-1-1962. Prior to that, land bearing Khasra Nos.13/2 and 14 to 25 was allotted to Hashmat Ali, respondent No,1 on 14-12-1956 and possession of the land delivered to him on 8-4-1957.
Respondent No,1 brought the land under cultivation with considerable expenditure and labour. The period of lease was three years but the same was extended to 5 years vide letter dated 27-6-1959 issued by the Provincial Government. Respondent No,1 remained in cultivating possession of the land. However, when the new allottee asked him to deliver possession of the land to him and officials from the office of the Collector threatened to dispossess him he filed the suit.
3. The petitioners' learned counsel contended that Faqir Muhammad predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners was lawfully allotted the land under the Islamabad Oustees Scheme and that he was given possession on 22-1-1962, hence the suit filed in the year 1978 was barred by time. He further submitted that respondent No,1 was a mere temporary allottee and not entitled to any notice before cancellation of his allotment as held in the case of Pahora v. Member Board of Revenue (Colonies) and others (1984 CLC 2230). He further submitted that respondent No,1 was not entitled to grant of proprietary rights as the land was allotted to the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners under a permanent scheme. On the other hand learned counsel for respondent No,1 urged that the petitioners, throughout, remained in physical possession of the land and the entry in the Daily Diary dated 22-1-1962 was a mere paper entry. He urged that the suit was filed well within time from the date of threats given by the petitioners for his forcible eviction. He pointed out that respondent No,1 was illegally dispossessed during the pendency of the suit but the possession was restored under orders of the Assistant Commissioner. He contended that respondent No,1 was entitled to conferment of proprietary-rights in the light of the memoranda issued by the Board of Revenue on 31-3-1971 and 26 4-1971. He placed reliance on the case of Kaloo v. Province of the Punjab (RSA 240 of 1980) decided by this Court on 27-5-1989.
4. As regards the question of limitation the objection raised before the trial Court in the written statement (filed by the petitioners) was that the orders of Revenue Officers passed in the year 1962 were being challenged in the year 1978, hence the suit was barred by time. In fact, respondent No,1 did not challenge any specific order passed by the Collector regarding cancellation of allotment or resumption of tenancy. Moreover, issue No,2 was decided by the trial Court in favour of the plaintiff/respondent No,1 and no cross-objections were filed before the appellate Court regarding findings of the trial Court on the said issue. This question was not even raised before the appellate Court. Hence the petitioners cannot be allowed to raise the question of limitation at this stage.
5. On merits the appellate Court appears to have taken into account the entire oral as well as documentary evidence and rightly reversed the findings of the trial Court on issues Nos.1, 9 and 10.
The petitioners' learned counsel has not been able to point out any misreading or non-reading of evidence so as to justify interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Respondent No,1 being an allottee under the Grow More Food Scheme and having brought the area under cultivation was entitled to the conferment of proprietary rights under Memo No, 2262-70/777-CL-III, dated 31-3-1971 and Memo. No,1488-71/1217-C1-III, dated 26-4-1971. The land allotted to Faqir Muhammad, deceased, out of the land comprised in the tenancy of respondent No,1 was never included in the schedule of the Islamabad Oustees Scheme as admitted by Javed Ali, Colony Clerk D.W.4 in his cross-examination. That being so, its allotment to Faqir Muhammad deceased was ab initio void.
6. The judgment in Pahora's case is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In *bat case State land was allotted for temporary cultivation which was resumed by the Collector vide his order dated 5-2-1979. The scheme regarding conferment of proprietary rights was notified on 3-8- 1979 i,e. 6 months after resumption of the land. Therefore, it was held that no vested right of the appellant was violated. In the present case no order for resumption of land was passed by the competent authority. Moreover, respondent No,1 was entitled to conferment of proprietary rights on the basis of memoranda issued by the Board of Revenue on 31-3-1971 and 26-4-1971.
7. For the foregoing reasons I find no merit in this petition which is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.