This revision calls in question, the judgment and decree, dated 20-9-1984, of the learned Additional District Judge, Kasur, dismissing the appeal of the petitioner and affirming the judgment and decree, dated 24-11-1979 of the learned trial Court.
2. A suit for declaration with consequential relief was filed by the petitioner, for seeking a declaration to the effect that the order, dated 21-6-1978, passed by Collector Kasur as illegal, void, mala fide, collusive, without jurisdiction and ineffective on the legal and possessory rights of the petitioner as and the petitioner alone had a right to get the land transferred in his favour and that the order, dated 24-8-1974, passed by the Collector, could not be reviewed or set aside by the Collector, Kasur. It was claimed that the petitioner Muhammad Amin and Karam Elahi sons of Shada and Karam Bakhsh son of Qadir were jointly holding land measuring 54 Kanals, 1 Marla as taab-e-marzi tenant. The respondents surrendered their rights in favour of the petitioner on which order, dated 24-8-1974, was passed by the Collector, whereby it was directed that the rights of "URDU TEXT" be transferred in favour of the petitioner as the petitioner had surrendered their rights in his favour. Noor Elahi son of Karam Elahi died and Muhammad Idrees etc. were his legal heirs and successors which were stated to be bound by the commitment made by their predecessor. It was further stated that the order, dated 24-8-1974 was duly implemented in the revenue record and the land remained in possession of the petitioner through Sharaf Din. The petitioner deposited the instalment for the transfer of rights. Later Noor Elahi son of Karam Elahi, moved an application before A.D.C. (G) Kasur for an inquiry in regard to transfer of the rights and the A.D.C. (G) passed order, dated 18-5-1976, which, according to the petitioner, was illegal, mala fide and without jurisdiction. It is stated that another order was passed on 27-6-1978. The application, dated 26-4- 1978 was presented before the Collector Kasur who passed order, dated 21-6-1976 whereby he directed that the claims of the Government having been satisfied, the rights of ownership be transferred to all the in the suit, the petitioner challenged order, dated 21-6-1978, on the ground that the same was illegal, against facts and rules, mala fide, without jurisdiction and collusive. It was submitted that the order of Collector, Kasur, dated 26-4-1978 could not be review or set aside by successor and if any one wanted to challenge it on the round of fraud he could rush to civil Court but there is no power for review vesting in the Collector.
3. The learned trial Court, appears to have framed four issues. Issue No,1 related to jurisdiction of the civil Court. While deciding application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of C.P.C., the learned Civil Judge without recording any evidence, proceeded to reject the plaint, in consequence of the findings recorded against issue No,1. It was observed, that the jurisdiction of the civil Court was barred by section 36 of Colonization of Lands Act, 1912.
4. The learned Additional District Judge, did not interfere with the order, and dismissed the appeal vide order, dated 20-9-1984. The two orders of the Courts below are subject-matter of challenge in this revision petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued, that the findings of the learned trial Court are against law, the jurisdiction of the civil Court was not barred in the circumstances of the case, no opportunity of recording evidence was allowed and that the suit was dismissed on conjectures and surmises. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents, supported the orders of the two Courts below and submitted, that the jurisdiction of the civil Court was barred and the suit was not maintainable.
6. The learned Civil Judge, while deciding Issue No,1, took the view, that the order of the Collector, was immune from challenge in the civil Court and the same could be challenged in the Constitutional jurisdiction. He also observed, that the term (collusive), used in the plaint for questioning the order did not constitute fraud.
7. The view taken by the learned Trial Court is absolutely perverse and contrary to the law. The intentions of section 36 of Colonization of Lands Act are that the Officers working under the Act should exercise their powers freely and could not be interrupted unnecessarily to administer colony land according to the statement of conditions issued by the Government. This provision, does not give un-fettered powers. The ambit of jurisdiction has been prescribed by the Act and the officers functioning, there under, cannot be allowed to act beyond their scope of jurisdiction. The civil Court, while exercising supervisory jurisdiction, has the authority to interfere, if the orders are without jurisdiction, mala fide, collusive or otherwise not in accordance with law or based on fraud. The jurisdiction may be ousted where a particular officer acted within the ambit of his jurisdiction but ouster cannot be termed or readily admitted despite the provision of section 36 of the Act, as the Civil Courts have always the power to see if the act of any Authority which is performed, is beyond the scope of its powers. There is plethora of case law laying down that despite clear ouster of jurisdiction of civil Court in a particular law, there are instances where jurisdiction can be exercised.
The jurisdiction can only be barred, if the authorities concerned acted within the four corners of their jurisdiction and not where their acts are ultra vires, without jurisdiction, void or in excess of their jurisdiction. If any reference is required, reliance can be placed on Karam Dad v. Arif Ali etc. (PLD 1978 Lhr. 679), Jewana v. Mst. Sukhi (PLD 1954 Lah. 253), Government of Punjab v. Harbhag Wan and others (1940 PLR 529) and Anjman Taleem-ul-Islam Lahore v. Province of West Pakistan (PLD 1993 Lah. 294).
8. Looking into the contents of the plaint, it is observed, that the order of the Collector has been challenged on the ground that the same was obtained collusively, which was mala fide, without jurisdiction, violative of law and that there was no provision permitting the Collector to set aside the order which was passed with the consent of the parties. The term collusive is quite exhaustive to include fraud and misrepresentation. Obviously, the petitioner was not required to lead evidence in the plaint. Sufficient particulars are shown to explain how the fraud has been committed and rest was to be done in evidence. The learned Trial Court, under erroneous impression as to the value of the order passed by the Collector, illegally assumed, that the said order was sacrosanct or cannot be questioned in the Civil Court. The view and reasoning of the learned Trial Court suffer from perversity and cannot be accepted. In the given circumstances, it cannot be said that the Civil Courts had no jurisdiction. In consequence, the findings of the learned Trial Court on Issue No,1 are set aside the case is remanded to the learned Trial Court, which shall decide the suit afresh after recording evidence, hearing the parties, in accordance with law and on its own merit. The parties shall appear before the learned Trial Court on 20-10-1997 which shall decide the suit positively, on merit, within three months with intimation to the Deputy Registrar (Judi.) of this Court.