' The instant Civil revision challenges the judgment and decree, dated 6-4-1983 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Toba Tek Singh and that of the learned Additional District Judge, dated 13-4-1983 dismissing the appeal.
2. The brief facts, in this case, are that the petitioner filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he is an allottee in possession of the agricultural land comprising Killas Nos. 11, 12, 13/1, 18/1, 19, 20/1, 20/2, 21, 22, and 23/1 square No,6 Khewat No,180 Khatuni No,364, as per Jamabandi for the year 1976-77, situated in Chak No,417/J.B. District Toba Tek Singh and that the order, dated 29-12-1979 passed by the C.A./Collector, Faisalabad, restoring the possession of the suit land to the defendant under the Grow More Food Scheme and the order dated 15-8-1972 are illegal, against law and facts and without jurisdiction.
3. The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the learned trial Court and Appellate Court has erred in holding that the learned Civil Court had no jurisdiction in the matter, and the order passed by the learned District Collector, dated 29-12-1979 did not suffer from any illegality for which learned Civil Court could interfere. Therefore, the learned Courts below have failed to take into consideration the pleadings of the plaintiff/petitioner that the petitioner was tenant under the Government under 15 years Lease Scheme under Notification, dated 3-9-1979. The disputed land was allotted to him by the learned Collector vide his order dated 3-1-1972 w,e,f, Kharif, 1971 for a period of 15 years. The defendant was a Grow More allottee. His allotment was cancelled from his name for non-compliance of the terms and conditions of Grow More Food Scheme. The land was resumed by the Government and it was put in the schedule for the temporary cultivation. The petitioner/plaintiff was having tenancy under the lease of one year and thereafter, he continued to be in possession till he was allotted land on 3-1-1978 under 15 years Lease Scheme. The order of the allotment dated 3-1-1972 was never brought under challenge by way of appeal or a civil suit, therefore, the finality has been attached to the aforesaid order. The learned Collector vide order dated 15-8-1972 directed for restoration of the possession of the disputed property in favour of defendant/ respondent. This order was brought under challenge in a civil suit on 1-3-1973 by the present petitioner. The aforesaid suit was decreed by the learned Civil Judge vide his judgment and decree dated 17-6-1977. The learned Civil Judge decided that parties should move to the Revenue Courts who should give an opportunity of hearing to the parties and decide the same. An application was moved to the learned District Collector for restoration of tenancy by the respondent/defendant. The learned Collector vide order dated 29-12-1979 restored the possession of the disputed land in favour of respondent No,1 . This order tantamounts reviewing the earlier order passed by the learned C.A./Collector dated 3-1-1972 where the respondent/defendant was declared ineligible for the restoration of the possession of the suit tenancy and the subsequent order dated 15-8-1972 had been set aside by the learned Civil Court vide judgment and decree, dated 17-6-1977. Therefore, the order, dated 29-12-1979 as well as the order dated 15-8-1972 are without jurisdiction. He relied on Noor Karim v. The State PLD 1975 (Rev)
168. Jamal Din v. The Province of Punjab and others 1985 CLC (Lah.) 2387, Province of Punjab v. Allah Din 1989 CLC 2495 and Nawab Din v. Province of Punjab 1986 MLD 921, where it was held that jurisdiction of Civil Court was not barred under colony matters. Further submitted that the allotment can be cancelled under the Grow More Food Scheme if the terms and conditions of the scheme are not fulfilled in view of Abdul Rahim and others v. Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue and others 1989 MLD 3148:
4. The learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He submitted that in the year 1961, a general order was passed by the Board of Revenue that those tenancies under Grow More Food which expired in Rabi 1961, allottees will not be eligible for proprietary rights. He further submitted that the Grow More Food tenancy under the aforesaid memo. Was restored to Abdul Ghani respondent. Since the tenancy of respondent Abdul Ghani, the Grow More Food allottee expired in 1961, therefore, his tenancy stood terminated in view of the aforesaid general order and not due to a breach of any terms and conditions of tenancy. All the Grow More allottees challenged this general order by way of different writ petitions in Muhammad Ashraf v. Board of Revenue. West Pakistan, and another PLD 1968 Lah.
1155. The High Court set aside the impugned general order passed by the Board of Revenue. In view of this very judgment the Board of Revenue issued the Memo. No,1488-71/1217-CL-III. On 26-4-1971 whereby the tenancies, under Grow More Food Scheme, were restored subject to the conditions that the allottees have not violated the terms and conditions of the grant and all the temporary leases prior to 26-4-1974 stood automatically cancelled.
' The Grow More Food tenancy under the aforesaid Memo. Was restored to Abdul. Ghani respondent vide order dated 15-8-1972 passed by the learned District Collector, which was challenged in a civil suit filed by the petitioner. The suit was decreed with the direction that the party should take recourse to the Revenue Authorities who shall decide the case after hearing the parties. In view of the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Court, the parties approached the learned District Collector who, after hearing the detailed arguments of both the parties, keeping in view the judgment. Muhammad Ashraf v. Board of Revenue, West Pakistan, and another PLD 1968 Lah. 1155, restored the tenancy vide order dated 29-12-1979 to the Grow More Food allottees. This order was not challenged before the superior revenue Courts, instead the present petitioner filed the civil suit which was heard and dismissed by the learned trial Court as well as Appellate court vide.
Impugned judgments and decrees under challenge in the instant revisions.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that where there are concurrent findings of facts arrived at by both the Courts below. The High Court can interfere in its revisional jurisdiction only when an inference is drawn by the lower Court wholly unfounded and proceeding upon assumptions not supported by record of pleadings of the parties, as the revisional jurisdiction is primarily intended for correcting errors made by the subordinate Courts in exercise of their jurisdiction-erroneous decisions of fact-ordinarily not revisable except when decision is based on no evidence, inadmissible evidence or so perverse as to cause grave injustice. Relies on Kanwal Nain and 3 others v. Fateh Khan and others PLD 1983 SC 53 and Alam Sher through legal heirs v.
Muhammad Sharif and 2 others 1998 SCMR 468 where it is held that under sections 10 and 36 read with Article 185(3) bar of jurisdiction of Civil Court contained in section 36 of the Act was mandatory. As such the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute over which Revenue hierarchy had jurisdictional authority to decide--orders passed by Revenue Officers were not shown to suffer from lack of jurisdiction. Moreover, plaintiffs had remedy to move appeal/revision before the Board of Revenue, which they admittedly failed to avail---Civil Court was not competent to interfere where Revenue Courts/ Authorities had exclusive jurisdiction.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
7. In the first round of litigation vide orders, dated 15-8-1972 and 4-1-1973, passed by the revenue Courts in view of the judgment Muhammad Ashraf v. Board of Revenue, West Pakistan, and another PLD 1968 Lah. 1155 and the Memo. No,1488, dated 26-4-1971 the tenancy under the Grow More Food Scheme, was restored to Abdul Ghani Grow More Food allottee. These orders were challenged in the Civil Court. The learned Civil Judge vide judgment and decree dated 17-6-1977 held that the land allotted to the present petitioner under 15 years Scheme cannot be cancelled and resumed from the name of the plaintiff and allotted in the name of defendant No,2 Abdul Ghani without affording an opportunity of hearing to the plaintiff, therefore, the orders of the learned Collector dated 15-8-1972 and 4-1-1973 are null and void. The parties moved to the learned District Collector for restoration of tenancy who after hearing both the parties vide order dated 29-124979, gave a finding that the temporary cultivation scheme is under Notification dated 3-9-1979 and it clearly shows that the concession of grant of proprietary rights does not apply to such lands which stand resumed or allotted under any permanent scheme. Vide Memo. No,3472-73/9157-CVI, dated 27-9- 1979 the tenancy was restored to Abdul Ghani on 15-8-1972 under the Grow More Food Scheme and the matter remained under litigation, therefore, the proprietary rights cannot be granted to the petitioner under the temporary cultivation scheme.
8. From the perusal of the record it seems that the tenancy of Abdul Ghani, Grow More Food allottee stood terminated in view of the general order which was set aside by the famous judgment Muhammad Ashraf v. Board of Revenue, West Pakistan, and another PLD 1968 Lah. 1155 and was restored vide Memorandum reproduced below: "Sub: Allotment of land under the Grow More Food-Grant of Proprietary Rights.
' Reference: Continuation of this Department Memo. No,8400-62-3438 CG-III, dated 8th October, 1962.
' Mr. M. Masud, C.S.P., Member Colonies Board of Revenue, Punjab.
' The High Court of West Pakistan has recently passed an order in Writ Petition No,658 of 1966 (Muhammad Ashraf v. Board of Revenue Revenue Punjab).
(2) In consequence of the orders passed by the High Court, Government of the Punjab in the Colonies Department is pleased to order that without any reference to the date of allotment and the period of the termination of the lease all allottees under the Grow More Food Scheme, shall be granted proprietary rights provided that they fulfil the terms and conditions on which lease were granted.
(3) Government has been further pleased to decide that allottees mentioned in para. 2 who are to be given proprietary rights shall be restored to the lands from which they have been ousted (all subsequent leases of this area stand cancelled automatically), if the land in question has not been allotted under any permanent scheme. If, however, the land in question has been allotted under any permanent scheme, such allottees shall be accommodated in some alternative area with the same rights they would be exercised on the land in question which is not possible now to be released.
(4) This memo. Supersedes the instructions contained in para. 3 of Board of Revenue's memo. No, 2805-82/2363/S(G)-III, dated the 8th August, 1962 and those in opening para. Of Memorandum No,8400/62-3438-CG.III dated 8th September, 1962.
(Sd.) Deputy Secretary, Government of Punjab (Colonies Department)"
9. The interpretation of 'grant' under the Colonization of Government Lands Act. 1912 is:- " 'Grant' includes any grant made in respect of any land to which these conditions have been applied; 'Grantee' means a person to whom the land has been granted under this statement of conditions and includes the successors-in-interest and the permitted assigns of the grantee but shall not include any holder of power of attorney on behalf of such grantee; 'Lessee' means a person holding State Land under temporary cultivation lease and shall be deemed to include the predecessors, successors and assigns of the lessee but shall not include any holder of power of attorney on behalf of such lessee; ' Temporary Cultivation Lease' means any lease other than a permanent or service grant; and ' Permanent Grant' means a grant in which promise for the purchase of proprietary rights has been made or in which a provision for periodical renewal/extension of the grant exists on fulfillment of certain conditions."
10. So far as the Grow More Food Scheme is concerned, it is a permanent scheme and the temporary cultivation scheme under Notification dated 3-9-1979 is a temporary cultivation scheme, subject to the statement of condition for grant of proprietary rights vide Memo. No,1925- 83/1253-CLI. Section 2 of the Scheme in the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912, is reproduced as under: "(2) Exceptions and Reservations.--- Unless it is otherwise specifically provided, the following lands shall be named to have been expressly excluded from every grant under the conditions--
(i) lands already allotted under permanent grants;
(ii) lands reserved or earmarked but not yet allotted under permanent grants or for public purpose;
(iii) . .
(iv) . .
(v) .
11. The respondent was allotted the disputed property under Grow More Food Scheme on 15-12- 1956. The period expired in the year 1961. The Board of Revenue from time to time has been issuing memos. Or instructions in respect of this scheme to regularize the scheme. Therefore, the tenancy of the petitioner was terminated vide general order and not by non-fulfillment of terms and conditions of the Grow More Food Scheme.
12. Even otherwise under the Grow More Food Scheme the waste land lying vacant could only be leased out for three years or five years. It is very surprising that the petitioner was given 15 years lease, although, prior to this he was given one year lease and it was being extended from time to time by the District Collector. Since under the exception and reservation of the terms and conditions of proprietary rights, as envisaged in the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912, the temporary cultivation allottees are ineligible to get the proprietary rights as the land stands included in a permanent scheme. Moreover, no grant under the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912 can confer any right or title over the lessee. No lease holder can file a declaratory suit in view of provisions of Specific Relief Act, and section. 36 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act which is reproduced below:-- "36. Jurisdiction of Civil Court barred as regards matter arising under the Act. A Civil Court shall not have jurisdiction in any matter of which the Collector is empowered by this Act to dispose and shall not take cognizance of the matter in which the Provincial Government, Board of Revenue or Collector or any other Revenue Officer exercise any power vested in it or in it or in him by or under this Act."
'The Civil Court being a Court of general jurisdiction no doubt can entertain the disputes regarding the rights or title or interest persons in the immovable property but the Code of Civil Procedure also provides under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. That where the Civil Court has jurisdiction to peruse the plaint and if it does not disclose a cause of action or is barred by law may reject the same. Under provision of law in colony matters the jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred in any matter in which the Collector, Additional Commissioner or the Board of Revenue is empowered to dispose of the matters and those matters stand disposed of within their lawful authority and exclusive jurisdiction, the Civil Court shall not interfere or entertain disputes falling within the hierarchy of the Revenue Courts. Therefore, no interference is made by this Court in the concurrent findings of facts arrived at by the Courts below. The Civil Revision is dismissed.
13. No order as to costs.