1. ' Sher Muhammad was a tenant of State land under Ejected Tenants Scheme. Land measuring 100 Kanals was allotted to him under the afore-noticed Scheme. Original or copy of the allotment order was not put on file. Date of allotment was also not disclosed.
2. ' By agreement executed on 19-12-1990, and registered on 2-3-1991, Sher Muhammad agreed for sale of the allotted land to the petitioners for a sum of Rs,2,50,000 and received Rs,2,00,000 in advance as earnest money and promised to complete the sale, upon conferment of proprietary rights in the allotted land. It was alleged that possession of the allotted land was transferred under the agreement to the petitioners and they were in its physical possession. So far no step was taken towards acquisition of proprietary rights in the State land.
3. ' Upon a threat, real or imaginary, from Sher Muhammad for dispossession of the petitioners from the land in dispute, they instituted a civil suit for perpetual injunction against him for prohibiting him from causing interference with their possession. Alongwith the plaint, an application for temporary injunction was also filed. Application was resisted by Sher Muhammad defendant.
4. Written statement was not yet submitted by him, but then he filed a petition under Order VII, Rule 11 of Civil P.C. For summary rejection of the plaint on the account that the suit was not maintainable.
5. Petitioners contested it. Trial Court sustained the objection as to the maintainability of the suit in its existing form and rejected the plaint on 10-5-1992. In appeal by the petitioners, this decision was maintained and the appeal was dismissed on 21-8-1993. Thereupon, this petition in revision was filed in this Court by the petitioners.
6. ' Counsel was heard at length. Sale of mere allotment rights in the State land was not permissible under the law. Upon conferment of proprietary rights if any, there shall be no bar to the specific performance of the alleged agreement for sale. Agreement, subject to its proof, had postponed the completion of sale till after transfer of ownership rights in the land. So, at present, suit for specific performance did not lie. As for the suit for the relief of perpetual injunction, it shall be sufficient to observe that the tenant in the State land or its allottee was prohibited to part with possession of the State land to an outsider without prior permission under section 19 of Punjab Act V of 1912,. I am afraid, the tenant under the Ejected Tenants Scheme could not transfer tenancy-rights in the State-land and part with possession in it to the petitioners. The scheme laid emphasis on self- cultivation of the allotted land. Therefore, an act contrary to law could not be blessed with a protective umbrella, in exercise of discretionary and equitable jurisdiction by the Court.
7. Furthermore, it was disclosed at the hearing by the learned counsel that the petitioners have already applied to the Collector for cancellation of respondent's allotment and had requested for allotment of the land to them. Respondent was opposing them before that forum. Complete record of the lis before the Collector was not placed on file of this Court. Therefore, I am not aware of its nature and the consequences to follow from it. So, I shall not comment on it.
8. ' The respondent denied the agreement for sale and receipt of sale price in it in his reply to the application for temporary injunction. In that view of the matter, it was not known as to how the petitioners entered upon allotted land. Copies of Revenue Records were not produced alongwith the civil revision. They were not shown at the hearing also. Therefore, clear picture of the Revenue Records on the nature of rights recorded in them was not available to this Court. On the basis of alleged unauthorised possession on the State land, relief of perpetual injunction could not be had from the Court for its protection. Even a suit for perpetual injunction entailed an adjudication into the right of plaintiff before granting him injunction.
9. ' See Muhammad Ilyas Hussain v. Cantonment Board, Rawalpindi PLD 1976 SC 785.
10. ' Lastly, learned counsel urged that the petitioners had a charge on the land for a sum of Rs,2,00,000 paid to Sher Muhammad respondent. Firstly, the agreement and the receipt of sale price in it were denied. Secondly, charge on tenancy-rights in the land belonging to the State could not have been created. Petitioners have other remedy to look for.
11. ' In view of the aforesaid, I would agree with the lower Courts, uphold their decision and dismiss the civil revision in limine.