1. ' SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.----The petitioners are seeking leave to appeal against the order of a learned Judge in Chambers of Lahore High Court, dated 26-5-1992 whereby the Civil Revision Application filed by respondent No,1 against the two concurrent judgments of the Courts below, arising from a declartory suit instituted by the petitioners, was allowed and the judgments and decrees passed by the two Courts below were set aside and the suit instituted by the petitioners was dismissed, as not maintainable.
2. ' The relevant facts of the case are that respondents 1 and 2 jointly filed a suit for pre-emption against petitioner No,1 and predecessors of petitioners 2 to 7 in respect of sale of land measuring 38 Kanals and 14 Marlas alleging that they had superior right of pre-emption, being tenant of the land. While the suit instituted by respondents 1 and 2 was pending, the proceedings were transferred to the Assistant Commissioner/Collector, Multan for adjudication. The Assistant Commissioner vide his order, dated 23-11-1976 decreed the claim of respondent No,1 for pre- emption to the extent of 12 Kanals out of 38 Kanals 14 Marlas while the claim of respondent No,2 was rejected as he was not found tenant of the suit land. The appeal preferred by the petitioners against the order of Assistant Commissioner before Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Multan, was dismissed on 2-4-1977. The petitioners instead of taking further proceedings against the order of Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Multan, in the hierarchy of revenue authorities, instituted a declaratory suit in the Court of Civil Judge, Multan, challenging the decision given by the Assistant Commissioner and Additional Commissioner (R), Multan. In the aforesaid suit they claimed that respondent No,1 was not the tenant of the suit land. The suit was resisted by respondent No,1. The Civil Judge by judgment, dated 22-6-1981 decreed the suit and declared the orders passed by Revenue authorities as without lawful authority. Respondent No,1 filed an appeal against the judgment and decree of Civil Judge before District Judge, Multan, who modified the judgment of the Civil Judge to the extent that he granted pre-emption decree to the extent of only 4 Kanals out of 12 Kanals in favour of respondent No,1. Respondent No,1 then filed a Civil Revision Application in the Lahore High Court which was accepted by a learned Judge in Chambers by the impugned judgment, dated 26-5-1992. The learned Judge in Chambers set aside the judgments and decrees passed by the Civil Judge as well as District Judge on the ground that the jurisdiction of Civil Court was barred under paragraphs 25 and 26 of the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972.
3. ' In seeking leave to appeal, the learned counsel for the petitioners contended before us that the Revenue Authorities while deciding the claim of pre-emption have committed factual error and as such the Civil Court, under section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, was entitled to interfere with the orders passed by Revenue Authorities and declare them as without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The learned counsel, accordingly, contended that the order of the learned Judge in Chambers, interfering with the concurrent judgments of two Courts below, is not sustainable in law.
4. ' The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners has no force. Relevant portions of paragraphs 25 and 26 of MLR 115 read as follows:--- "Para. 25.--- (5) All the suits for enforcing the right of pre-emption in respect of land comprised in a tenancy shall be exclusively entertained, heard and decided by the Collector within whose jurisdiction the land in respect of which the right of pre-emption has been claimed is situated, and all such suits which may be pending in any Court immediately before the commencement of the Land Reforms (Amendment) Ordinance, 1976, shall, on such commencement, stand transferred to the Collector concerned.
(6) Any person aggrieved by an order passed by a Collector under the preceding sub-paragraph may, within thirty days of such order, present an appeal to Commissioner.
(7) The Board of Revenue may at any time of its own motion or otherwise call for the record of any case or proceedings under this paragraph which is pending or in which a Collector or Commissioner has passed an order, for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of such proceedings or order, and may pass such order in relation thereto as it thinks fit: ' Provided that no order shall be passed under this sub-paragraph revising or modifying an order affecting any person unless such person has been afforded an opportunity of being heard: ' Provided further that the record of any case or proceedings in which a Collector or Commissioner has passed an order shall not be called for under this sub-paragraph on the application of any aggrieved person made after the expiration of thirty days from the date of such order.
(8) For the purposes of this paragraph a Collector, a Commissioner and the Board of Revenue shall be deemed to be a Civil Court and shall have all powers of a Civil Court under any law for the time being in force and the final order passed in such suits shall be deemed to be a decree of a Civil Court and shall be executed as such.
(9) In computing the limitation provided for in sub-paragraph (6) or subparagraph (7), the provisions of section 5 and section 12 of the Limitation Act, 1908 (IX of 1908), shall apply.
5. ' Explanation.---In this paragraph "Collector", "Commissioner" and "Board of Revenue" have the meaning assigned to them in the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 (W.P. Act XVII of 1967)."
6. "26. Bar of jurisdiction. ---(1) No provision of this Regulation or of any rules or orders made thereunder shall be called in question in any Court, including the High Court and the Supreme Court, or before any authority other than an authority appointed under this Regulation, and no such Court or authority shall have jurisdiction in respect of any matter which the Commission is empowered to determine.
(2) No such Court or authority as aforesaid shall be competent to grant any injunction or other order in relation to any proceeding before the Commission or before any officer exercising any power or discharging any function under this Regulation or the Rules or Orders made thereunder, or in relation to anything done or intended to be done by or at the instance of the Commission or such officer."
7. The combined effect of the above provisions is that the jurisdiction to try a suit for pre-emption based on the right of tenancy vests exclusively with the Collector within whose jurisdiction the pre- empted land is situated. The decision of Revenue Authorities on any matter in such proceedings, which the Revenue Authorities are competent to decide under the provisions of MLR 115, cannot be brought under challenge before a Civil Court in a civil suit in view of the provision of paragraph 26 of MLR 115. The learned Judge in Chambers was, therefore, right in holding that the Civil Judge and the District Judge had no jurisdiction to examine the validity of the pre-emption decree passed in favour of respondent No,1 by the Collector and confirmed in appeal by the Additional Commissioner (Revenue) in exercise of appellate jurisdiction under para. 25 of MLR 115. There is no merit in this petition, which is dismissed accordingly.