SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.---Leave to appeal was granted to examine whether all the three Courts were justified in law in upholding the order of the A Land Commission authorities relating to the suit property by their order dated 10-11-1977 followed by others on 21-3-1984 and 15-8-1984.
2. The case of the appellant was that Muhammad Nawaz Gardezi had died in 1966 leaving behind three sons the appellant being one of them. Agricultural land left by their father was located in various villages like Kori Baloch, Kotla Kabir and Rukanpur of Tehsil Kabirwala and village Kotla Bakhshu Khan of Tehsil Multan. In 1976, a year before the promulgation of the Land Reforms Act, 1977, the three brothers decided to partition the property and if as per their agreement the partition had been effected of the entire property, none of the brothers would have been the declarant under the Land Reforms Act of 1977. But while implementing their scheme of partition, they were confronted with a situation where two properties had to be excluded from partition; one because it was a grant in which proprietary rights had bot been obtained, and the other because it was mortgaged at that time with the Muslim Commercial Bank Limited. Excluding these, the rest of the properties left by the father was partitioned and the Revenue Record reflected so. As regards these two portions of the properties, they were shown as joint. In this background the Land Reforms Act of 1977 came to be enforced. The result of it was that the plaintiff who had not yet received 1/3rd share in the partition on account of impartibility of these properties was not required to file any declaration or to surrender any portion of his holding. His two brothers had coupled with their joint share in these two properties with their exclusive property falling to their share as a result of partition duly accomplished exceeded the ceiling. They had to file a declaration and exercise choice to surrender the excess. In surrendering the land they both surrendered their share in the joint land which was awaiting partition and was at that time impartible. The plaintiff/appellant intervened at that stage with an application claiming that in fact he was to be the owner of the property which in the Revenue Record was shown as joint property and in any case after removal of the legal infirmities which made these properties impartible it would come to him, that the two brothers should not be allowed to surrender it to the Land Commission. This application was rejected by the Deputy Land Commissioner, Multan on 10-11-1977. The reasons given by him was as hereunder:-- "The request of the applicant cannot be accepted as according to natural justice, the choice for the resumption of the area is to be given by declarants and this choice is accepted at all costs. If the declarants have given the choice to surrender the area of village Rukanwala and Kotli Bakhshu Khan under the Land Reforms, so I think they cannot be forced to keep this area with them under the Land Reforms. The area which the applicant wants is owned and possessed by the other two brothers and it cannot be transferred to him unless his two brothers agree to return it to him."
3. A civil suit was instituted thereafter for avoiding this order and attacking the surrender of that property in favour of the Land Commission. Two issues of importance at this stage are one of jurisdiction and the other with regard to the title of the plaintiff/appellant (Issue No,7). The trial Court held that as the plaintiff/appellant was claiming the order of the Land Commission to be void ab initio, therefore, the civil Court had the jurisdiction. While examining the merits of the case, the trial Court found that the order of the Land Commission was not void at all. The reason given for holding on merits against the appellant would appear from the following extract of the judgment:- - "Simple suit for declaration that the proceedings initiated by defendant No,3, for resumption of the land in dispute are illegal and void is not maintainable particularly when it is admitted position between the parties that the said proceedings which were challenged by the plaintiff by way of this suit stands terminated vide orders of DLC, dated 21-3-1984 and 15-8-1984, and these orders were never challenged nor amendment was sought for, for the reason best known to the plaintiff. Even otherwise, plaintiff based his case on family arrangement which was reduced into black and white on 30-9-1976 which is on the record as Exh. P.1, showing that the land in dispute fell in the lot of the plaintiff cannot be taken as a whole truth keeping in view the fact that the plaintiff and defendants Nos. 1 and 2 are real brothers and if at all the land in dispute fell in the lot of the plaintiff per agreement Exh. P/1, why the plaintiff kept quite when the proceedings were in progress and why it was not brought in to the knowledge of the authorities concerned there and then."
' The Additional District Judge affirmed this finding and so did the High Court in revision.
4. The land holdings, which were impartible on the date Land Reforms Act of 1977 were enforced had to be treated as joint. On such treatment the other two brothers of the appellant became declarants. They had a choice in surrender. They exercised it to the detriment of the plaintiff/appellant. What the plaintiff/appellant is claiming is that what was legally impartible should be taken to be in fact partible and to be his property instead of the joint property of the two brothers. This contention obviously cannot prevail because what is prohibited by law cannot be assumed to exist as a fact. Even the Revenue Record had not given such an impression.
5. The Land Commission authorities were fully justified in taking note of the existing Revenue Record as they should have legally existed and given effect to. They could not have awaited or given effect to the removal of this impediment which could have permitted the partition of the joint property with a view of separate the shares of each in accordance with the agreement and arrangements that had been made between the brothers. In this view of the matter the Land Commission authorities were acting within their jurisdiction and the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was clearly barred under section 28 of the Land Reforms Act, 1977. There was no question of attacking the order of the Land Commission to be suffering from any jurisdictional or legal defect as such. Whatever relief the appellant/plaintiff has to obtain, he had to get from the Land Commission authorities and not from the civil Court.
6. No case is made out for interference in appeal which is dismissed with any order as to costs.