MAULVI ANWAR-UL-HAQ, J.- For the order to be passed in the main case, no order is required to be passed in this C.M. The same is accordingly disposed of.
Main case. Some land belonging to Nawab Muzaffar A.I Qazilbash was resumed under the provisions of MLR.
64. Out of this land an area of 221, kanals and 11 marlas was granted to one Jamal Din vide order dated 14.9.1961 of the Deputy Land Commissioner, Toba Tek Singh. One Ghulam Nabi, redecessor-in-interest of the respondents filed an appeal against the said. Order which was heard by a learned Land Commissioner and vide order ated 9.10.1962, he set aside the said grant in favour of Jamal Din and nstead directed sale of the suit land measuring 43 kanals specifically escribed with reference to its Khasra numbers in favour of respondents d Square numbers. It is a matter of record that this order was not hallenged by any one and consequently the land was transferred to said hulam Nabi. In an appeal filed by the present petitioner against the said rant in favour of the said Jamal Din, the same Land Commissioner set aside the said grant in favour of Jamal Din and directed that the land in possession of the petitioner be sold to him under the Sales Scheme. Jamal Din challenged the said order by filing proceedings under the said Regulation and Rules framed there under and ultimately when the matter came to this Court he failed. Meanwhile, the Chief Land Commissioner reviewed the order passed by him on 15.7.1963 on appeal of Jamal Din and instead of an ing the appeal as time barred he proceeded to dismiss the same on merits vide order dated 25.5.1964. The Revenue authorities pursuant to the said order proceeded not only to mutate the said land taken over from Jamal Din in favour of the present petitioner but in the process also cancelled the mutation transferring the suit land in favour of the respondents. An appeal was filed but the same was dismissed. Thereafter the respondents filed the present suit. The precise contention was that the order dated 9.10.1962 granting the suit land to the respondents was not challenged by any one and it holds the field through and through and as such the act of the concerned officials in cancellation of the mutation in their favour is illegal and void. The petitioner contested this suit. The suit was tried on its merits and the learned Civil Judge decreed the suit on 11.12.1990. The respondents filed an appeal which was heard by a learned Additional District Judge, Toba Tek Singh who also dismissed the same on 28.6.1999.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argues that the order passed by the Chief Land Commissioner for review of order dated 25.5.1964 has the effect of setting aside the order dated 9.10.1962 of Mr. Hamad Raza, Land Commissioner in favour of the respondents and as such the impugned judgments and decrees have been passed in exercise of a jurisdiction not vesting in the two learned Courts below.
3. I have gone through the certified copies of the record appended with this Court Revision with the assistance of the learned counsel. I am afraid the interpretation being placed by the learned counsel on the said order dated 25.5.1964 is not possible. It is an admitted fact that the order passed by the Land Commissioner on 9.10.1962 (at page 60 of the paper book) was not challenged by any one in any manner prescribed by law. It was not even otherwise set aside in exercise of any suo moto jurisdiction. So far as the order dated 25.5.1964 being relied upon by the learned counsel, is concerned, the same does not proceed against the order dated 9.10.1962 of the Land Commissioner in favour of the respondents. This was a matter between Jamal Din and the petitioner. The Chief Land Commissioner found that the land was not available. This by no stretch of imagination can be said to the effect that the Chief Land Commissioner proceeded to set aside the order of the Land Commissioner dated 9.10.1962.
Needless to say that the respondents were not a party before the Chief Land Commissioner and a reading of the order shows that the Chief Land Commissioner was not even aware of the passing of the order of Land Commissioner dated 9.10.1962.
4. Even otherwise, I have noticed that the learned Courts below have concurrently found the respondents to be in possession at the time of relevant crops of 1958 and 1959 which is the sole factor which entitles a tenant to the grant of land under the Sales Scheme. This findings of fact is fully supported by the evidence on record. Besides the learned Courts below have very correctly concluded that under order dated 9.10.1962 the suit land with reference to specific particulars including Khasra numbers was ordered to be sold to the respondents by the learned Land Commissioner on 8.10.1962 whereas it could not be said that the, suit land was as such transferred or ordered to be transferred to the petitioner by the Land Commission Authorities. No other point has been urged. The impugned judgment and decrees do not suffer from any lack or excess of jurisdiction or any material irregularity so as to enable this Court to interfere with the same in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 115 C.P.C. The Civil Revision is accordingly dismissed in liming.