' This Constitutional petition is directed against the judgment sated 5-7-1975 of the learned District Judge, Mianwali, whereby he accepted he appeal of the respondent and vacated the judgment and decree of the earned Civil Judge, Bhakkar dated 27-11-1974. This judgment will dispose of N.Ps.
Nos.1743, 2857, 2858, 2982, 2984, 3085 and 3209 of 1975 where common question of law and fact is involved.
2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that by Notification No,1486-C of 31st october, 1952, the Resettlement and Colonies I partment, framed a scheme, lamely, well-sinking and tubewell sinking, in Thal Projecting Colony, under C.D.A. Act, 1949. In pursuance of this the petitioner was allotted Lot No, 252, neasuring 1,200 Kanals situated in Rakh Hyderabad, Tehsil Bhakkar and the mssession was delivered to him accordingly on 1-10-1953 and the petitioner leposited Rs,1,350 including Rs,100 for trial boring of tubewell. No trial boring vas conducted by the respondent for which a sum of Rs,100 was paid and herefore, the petitioner of his own installed the tubewell and cultivated the and and the same is still in cultivating possession of the petitioner uptil now.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that without my hearing and notice and without determination of the conditions of the scheme, the disputed land was cancelled from the name of the petitioner. 'hereafter the petitioner filed a civil suit for perpetual injunction restraining he respondent to interfere with the possession and cultivation of the land allotted to him and after framing issues and recording of evidence the learned civil Judge vide his judgment dated 27-11- 1974 decreed the suit. The espondent filed an appeal and the same was accepted by judgment, dated -7-1975 of the learned District Judge, Mianwali on the ground of lack of irisdiction by virtue of insertion of section 74-A in the Punjab Act XV of 1949. 'his amendment was inserted on 6th June, 1975. The operative part of the idgment dated 5-7-1975 is as hereunder:-- "In the light of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel, I am of the opinion that in view of the Ordinance, referred to above, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred to entertain and decide the instant case and such like cases and that the ultra vires of the Ordinance can be looked into only by the High Court and the Supreme Court."
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Farooq edar, Additional Advocate- General. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the question of jurisdiction has wrongly been decided by the learned Appellate Court. Reliance is placed on Barkat Ali v. Administrator, Thal Dvelopment, Bhakkar PLD 1978 Lah. 867, Muhammad Akbar v. Thal Development Authority 1979 CLC 456, Ch. Ali Muhammad v. The Administrator, Thal Bhakkar, District Mianwali and 3 others 1979 CLC 585. Ilam Din and 2 others v. The Administrator, Thal, Bhakkar 1988 CLC 119, which are directly applicable to the legal proposition canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Reliance is also placed on The Murree Brewery Co. Ltd. v. Pakistan through Secretary to Government of Pakistan, Works Division and 2 others PLD 1972 SC 279, The State v. Zia-ur-Rehman and others PLD 1973 SC 49, Federation of Pakistan v. Saeed Ahmed Khan PLD 1974 SC 151, Fauji Foundation v. Shamim-ur-Rehman PLD 1983 SC 457 and Federation of Pakistan v. Ghulam Mustafa Khar P D 1989 SC 26 to show that when an order is passed without jurisdiction the same can be corrected in the exercise of writ jurisdiction. Lastly the petitioner has also filed a copy of D.B. decision dated 17-7-1966 in Writ Petition No,610 of 1958 to show that it was the duty of the respondent to fulfil the terms and conditions regarding trial boring in case Rs,100 had been paid and that the land allotted to the petitioner could only be cancelled if there was any violation of any term and condition on which the land was granted.
5. The ratio decidendi of the aforementioned judgments unmistakably show that the trial Court had the jurisdiction to pass the judgment and decree and therefore, the appellate Court could not have in law, set aside the same for lack of jurisdiction. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is well-based on the settled law and therefore, the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge is declared as without lawful authority and it is directed that the appellate authority will rehear the appeals 'in accordance with law.
' In view of above, the writ petition is accepted with no order as to costs.