SYED JAMSHED ALI, J.- The appellant herein filed a suit challenging the order dated 27.9.1960 passed by A.R.C. Allotting land measuring 22 kanals 13 marlas to the respondent.
2. The defendant contested the suit on which a number of issues were framed. However, on the basis of the finding on issue No. 2 "Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try and entertain this suit" the suit was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 24-2-1975.
3. The appellant took an appeal before the learned District Court which met the same fate vide judgment dated 30.7.1976 of the learned Addl. District Judge, Gujrat.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has vehemently contended that the question of jurisdiction was mixed question of law and fact and the a Civil Court beings the Court of ultimate jurisdiction could go into the question whether the order of A.R.C. Was or was not within his jurisdiction.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the record. The basis of the judgment of the learned Addl. District Judge, Gujrat is that the order dated 27.9.1960 of the A.R.C.
Was initially challenged before the higher Rehabilitation Authorities and ultimately the matter was taken to this Court but the appellant failed. Therefore, it could not be reagitated by way of a civil suit.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant informed me that writ petition No. 606/R of 1964 was filed by the appellant. I asked the office to put up the said writ petition but the office reported that the said file was not available as it had been burnt.
7. I have perused the copy of the plaint. The order dated 27-9-1960 of the A.R.C. Was challenged on 27.2.1969. Even if it could be said that Article 120 of the Limitation Act (and not Article 15) applied to challenge such an order it was patently beyond the prescribed period of limitation. On the examination of the plaint it is also found that against the said order dated 27.9.1960 an appeal was filed before D.R.C. (L) and ultimately a revision petition was filed before the Settlement Commissioner. Both the appeal and the revision petition were dismissed. The order dated 27.9.1960 merged into the order passed by the Settlement Commissioner in revision and the said order was not even challenged in the suit.
8. In view of the. Above, there is no merit in this appeal which is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.