MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J. - Briefly stated the facts giving rise to this petition are that Abdul Razzaq (plaintiff-respondent) filed a suit to possession regarding land measuring 1 kanal, 4 marlas out of khata No. 178, khatooni-No. 293, bearing khasra No. 530/11, situated in Kallurkot, District Bhakkar. It was claimed by the respondent that the land in question was purchased by him through auction as an evacuee property and was owner thereof.
2. The suit was resisted by the petitioner on the ground that the property before partition was a Muslim property and according to the revenue record it has been shown as "Ghair Mumkin Rasta", but subsequently it was incorrectly shown to be owned by Central Government through still as "Ghair Mumkin Rasta" and consequently the auction in favour of the respondent is illegal and nullity in the eyes of law. On the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed:-
(1) Whether the plaintiff has got no cause of action to bring the present suit? OPD
(2) Whether the suit is not maintainable in its present form? OPD
(3) Whether the plaintiff is the legal owner in possession of the suit land? OPD
(4) Relief.
3. The learned Civil Judge, Kallur Kot, seized of the matter, vide judgment and decree dated 9.7.1984 by deciding Issues Nos. 2 and 3 against the respondent dismissed the suit, whereas no finding on Issue No. 1 was given as having not been pressed. Against the said judgment and decree an appeal was preferred by the respondent which was accepted by the learned Additional District Judge, Bhakkar, vide judgment and decree dated 8.1.1986.
4. In paragraph 5 of the impugned judgment the Appellate Court has referred to the documentary evidence on the record, particularly copy of Register Haqdaran Zameen for the year 1946-47 which contemplates that the property was owned by Khan Muhammad and others and its previous khasra number was 352/11. It was, however, shown as "Ghair Mumkin Rasta". As per Exh. D-4 similar entries were repeated. However, according to Exh. D-5, a copy of the Register Haqdaran Zameen for the year 1966-67, this property was shown to be owned by the Central Government and was again shown Ghair Mumkin Rasta. In Exh. D-6 the property has been shown to be owned by the respondent but its nature remains the same. The Appellate Court has stated that from the perusal of the above documents it is manifest that this property was originally owned by a Muslim owner and was erroneously treated to be an evacuee property. It is observed by the Appellate Court that such property should not have been treated as a evacuee. He, however, held that as the Civil Courts cannot ignore the orders of the Settlement Authorities treating a property as evacuee, therefore, the title of the respondent to the suit property in this case is established,
5. I do not fine myself in agreement with the Appellate Judge, though according to him the property at the time of partition was a Muslim property and Ghair Mumkin Rasta and could not be treated as an evacuee, but still maintained that the Civil Court cannot ignore the order of the Settlement Authorities in this behalf. After the repeal of Evacuee and Settlement Laws in 1975, in fact, Civil Court is the only competent forum to decide these issues. It is for the Civil Court to see whether an order passed by the Settlement Authorities in treating a property as evacuee is valid or void. Once it was obvious from the record that the property before the partition was a Muslim property, Civil Courts could not ignore this fact. It is established principle of law that when an order is initially void, the entire super structure built thereon has no legal value. It may be pertinent to point out that throughout the property has been described as Ghair Mumkin Rasta and it is strange that how a public thoroughfare could be validly transferred in favour of the respondent.
6. I have confronted the counsel for respondent with the situation whether the possession of a public thoroughfare can be handedover to him, he very frankly conceded that it was not possible because the land in question is being used as a street and the respondent can be put in possession thereof. He, however, maintains that as the street had been constructed by the petitioner without acquiring the same, therefore, he is entitled to receive compensation as decreed by the Appellate Court.
7. I am afraid that this plea was never raised by the respondent and no such relief was claimed in the alternative. Even otherwise it is not the case of the petitioner that the land in question is owned by it rather the petitioner has only made such a pacca street. This being the case the petitioner is not even obliged j^pay any compensation to the respondent as held by the Court below.
8. In view of the above, I accept this revision petition and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Appellate Court and uphold the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. No order as to costs.