This revision filed under section 115, C.P.C. Arises out of circumstances hereinafter appearing. The petitioner's father Mokha was appointed Lamberdar of Chak No.206-EB, Tehsil and District Vehari vide order dated 9-2-1981 by the District Collector. After his death the petitioner was appointed as Lamberdar vide order dated 10-12-1983. Land measuring 100 Kanals in Square No. 15 was transferred to Ameera respondent No. l on proprietorship basis on 5-3-1981, under the Notification dated 3-9-1979 (commonly known as conditions of proprietary rights) because this land was in his possession on lease since before Kharif 1977. Manzoor Ahmad petitioner after becoming Lamberdar made an application before the Collector in 1984 that the land given to Ameera respondent be cancelled from his name and it be allotted to him under the Lamberdari Scheme. His application, however, was dismissed by the Collector vide order dated 13-10-1985 and an appeal filed thereagainst was also dismissed on 18-11-1985. The petitioner's revision petition was also dismissed by the Board of Revenue vide order dated 18-2-1986 on the ground that the land already stood vested in the respondent as a proprietor and the petitioner had no lien or vested right in this land.
2. Feeling aggrieved against the orders passed by the Revenue authorities the petitioner filed a suit for declaration that orders dated 13-10-1985, 18-11-1985 and 18-2-1986 respectively passed by the Collector, the Commissioner and the Board of Revenue were against law and facts and without jurisdiction and that he was entitled to have the area in dispute by way of Lamberdari grant. The following issues were framed by the learned trial Court: "(i) Whether this Court has no jurisdiction? OPD.
(ii) Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action? OPD.
(iii) Whether the suit is not maintainable in its present form? OPD.
(iv) Whether the order dated 13-10-1985 passed by the defendant No. 1, order dated 18-11-1985 passed by the Commissioner, Multan and order dated 18-2-1986 passed by the MBOR are against law and facts and ineffective qua the rights of the plaintiff? OPP.
(v) Relief."
3. Issue No.4 which clinches the controversy has been concurrently decided against the petitioner- plaintiff by the two Courts below. The learned appellate Court exhaustively dealt with the arguments addressed by the parties on Issue No.4 and after minute examination of evidence and the law including the notification pressed into service came to the conclusion that the suit land was not reserved areas under Lamberdari scheme and even the father of the petitioner remained in its possession for same time as a lessee and not as grant-holder under Lamberdari scheme.
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the area which has been transferred in favour of Ameera respondent on 5-3-1981 could not have been given on proprietary basis to him under the Notification dated 3-9-1979, because the area in question was reserved for Lamberdari Scheme vide Jamabandi Exh. P.8. This submission is based on para. No.2 of the Notification which says that the following land were not transferable under the Scheme which is commonly known as conditions for purchase of proprietary rights: -- "(i) Lands already allotted under permanent grants.
(ii) Lands reserved or area marked but not. Yet allotted4under permanent grants."
The learned Appellate Court duly considered Jamabandi Exh. P.8. And concluded that the area in dispute not reserved for Lamberdari scheme but was merely shown as proposed. It is vehemently argued that Jamabandi Exh.P.8 was misconstrued and misread by the two Courts below.
5. After hearing the learned counsel I am of the view that the concurrent conclusions of Courts below relating to question of fact cannot be interfered in the revisional jurisdiction. The Jamabandi Exh.P.8 has been duly considered and rightly construed by the Courts below. It does not show that the land was reserved for the Lamberdari Scheme. Entry under column No.4 of Jamabandi Exh.P.8.
Reads (Majviza lambardari muslim mokha wald Muhammad kharal licensdar barai panch saal.)
This evidently shows that the land was merely proposed but not reserved for the Lamberdari scheme. The findings of Courts below thus cannot be said to be contrary to record or otherwise arbitrary or fanciful. Resultantly the revision petition deserves to be dismissed.
6. 'Be that as it may, the petitioner is not entitled to claim relief in the discretionary jurisdiction under section 115, C.P.C. Additionally for the following reasons:--
(i) The suit land was transferred on ownership basis in favour of Ameera respondent on 5-3-1981 being cultivator in possession. The petitioner became Lamberdar much thereafter on 10-12-1983.
When the petitioner became Lamberdar the land had already become the property of the respondent. It was no longer available for allotment to the petitioner.
(ii) The order dated 5-3-1981, whereby land admittedly was given to the respondent, was passed by the Collector. This order has never been challenged in appeal by the petitioner. For the first time the suit land which was transferred to the respondent by the District Collector was sought to be cancelled by making an application in 1984 before the Collector. Obviously, it was neither an appeal nor a revision. The transfer made in favour of the respondent had already attained finality.
(iii) The petitioner admittedly never remained in possession of the suit land. On the other hand respondent No. l is in possession of the land as a tenant since before 1977.
(iv) Initially a scheme was promulgated in 1971 for allotment of land to the Lamberdars but as conceded by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the same was abolished in 1973 and it was for the first time thereafter on 15-3-1984 that the Government provided for temporary allotment of land to the Lamberdars vide Notification dated 15-3-1984 (printed at page 227 of the book) written by Ch. Muhammad Hussain Jahanian. The right on the basis of which petitioner claims the transfer of the land' in his favour as a Lamberdar was not in existence when the land was transferred in favour of the respondent, therefore, it was past and closed transaction.
7. For what has been discussed above, the revision petition is dismissed in limine