' Land involved in the case is 630 Kanals, 7 Marlas comprising Khewat No,247, Khatuni Nos.1152 to 1167, situated in Mauza Chot Dheeran, Teshil Phalia, District Gujrat. According to Jamabandi for the year 1982-83 the total shareholders in this Khewat are 14 in number. Ghulam Rasul, etc. Filed a suit for payment of share of produce through rendition of accounts in the Court of Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Phalia relating to the crop Rabi 1985 to Kharif 1987 which was decreed on 27th of August, 1988 for a sum of Rs,10,809.63. The petitioners filed an appeal against this order and decree, dated 27th of August, 1988 in the Court of A.C./Collector, Mandi Baha-ud-Din who accepted it and remanded the case to Assistant Collector 1st Grade for decision afresh vide order, dated 15th of February, 1989 on the ground that decree has been passed against those respondent also who did not have in their possession land in excess of their share in the Khata. Assistant Collector 1st Grade decided the case on 3rd of July, 1989 and maintained his previous judgment and decree. Against this order, an appeal was filed before A.C./Collector Mandi Baha-ud-Din which was rejected and the decision of Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Phalia was upheld vide order, dated 19th of November, 1990. Jahana (Deceased) through Dari, etc. Filed revision petition against this order, dated 19th of November, 1990 which was dismissed on 20th of March, 1992. Review petition filed in the Court of Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Gujranwala Division met the same fate on 7th of January, 1993. The present revision petition has been filed against this order of Additional Commissioner.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that order and decree, passed by Assistant Collector 1st Grade for Rs,10,809.65 exceeded his pecuniary jurisdiction. Since this order of Assistant Collector 1st Grade was bad in law, therefore, the entire superstructure built on it, such as order of A.C./Collector and Additional Commissioner must fall. These orders, therefore, ought to be set aside on this score alone. It was also argued that A.C./Collector while remanding the case for fresh decision to Assistant Collector 1st Grade had given specific directions which were not abided by Assistant Collector 1st Grade while deciding the case. It was contended that respondent had filed suit for payment of share of produce through rendition of accounts for 4 crops while the law stipulates that separate suits should have been filed for each crop. The consolidated claim for 4 crops was, therefore, bad in law and as such ought not to have been entertained by Assistant Collector 1st Grade. It was further averred that the suit was decreed without association of other co-sharers in the proceedings. It was further stated that the petitioners had been in the relevant period and are still cultivating land in the joint Khata according to their respective shares.
3. The learned counsel for the respondents contended that there was no restriction to pass decree of more than Rs,10,000 by Assistant Collector 1st Grade. He further pleaded that under the Punjab Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1977, the limit of 3 years was reduced to 2 years which involved 4 crops.
Referring to section 120 of Limitation Act he submitted that the period relevant to the instant case in respect of crops is 6 years which involves 12 crops. He reported that the present petitioners had filed suit in the civil Court which was subsequently withdrawn and that suit for rendition of accounts relating to Rabi 1984 was also decreed against the present respondents for Rs,6,611 which decree stands executed. It was stated that copy of Register Haqdaran Zamin (Exh. P-I), Khasra Girdawari (Exh.P-II), statement of accounts (Exh.P-III) and Naqsha Kami Beshi (Exh.P-IV) were thoroughly examined by the lower Courts which determined that petitioners were in possession of land in excess of their share. He conceded that although some of the co-sharers were not heard in the first instance but while passing the decree and order, dated 3rd of July, 1989, all the co-sharers were associated with the proceedings and heard by Assistant Collector 1st Grade. It was contended that concurrent findings of the lower Courts were based on correct interpretation of law and as such ought to be maintained. He referred to NLR 1979 SC 50 in support of this contention.
4. Two main issues have been raised by learned counsel for the petitioners are that:--
(a) Assistant Collector First Grade is not vested with pecuniary jurisdiction to pass a decree exceeding Rs,10,000 in a suit falling in Second Group Serial (k).
(b) The law requires that separate suits should have been filed for each crop. Suit for 4 crops is incompetent.
5. I have given careful consideration to the arguments of the parties specially to the pleadings of learned counsel for the petitioners. The proviso to subsection (3) of section 77 of Punjab Tenancy Act relates to plaints to be presented to the Collector by the plaintiff on the direction of Civil Court for determination of matter exclusively falling within the jurisdiction of Revenue Courts. This proviso stipulates that suits where the value thereof exceeds Rs,10,000 or the matter involved is of the nature mentioned in section 77(3), First Group of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 will be trouble by Collector alone. This proviso does not have an overriding effect on the contents of subsections (3) and (5) of section 77. Subsection (4)(b) states that an Assistant Collector of 1st Grade may hear and determine any of the suits mentioned in the second and third groups of that subsection. No pecuniary jurisdiction has been prescribed in the general provision of section 77 or A elsewhere in the Punjab Tenancy Act in respect of suits falling in serial (k) of the Second Group. The first assertion of the learned counsel for the petitioners is, therefore, untenable.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners has not cited any provision of law which makes the suit under serial (k) of Second Group bad if it is for rendition of accounts of 4 crops. Reference given by learned counsel for the respondents to section 120 of Limitation Act, however, is not relevant to rebut the unsubstantiated assertion of learned counsel for the petitioners that a suit involving 4 crops falling in serial (k) of Second Group is bad in law.
7. I, therefore, find that there is no legal infirmity in the concurrent findings of the -lower Courts.
Resultantly, the orders of Additional Commissioner, dated 30-3-1992 and 7-1-1993 are upheld and