' This judgment shall decide C.R.No,118 of 1990 and C.R.No,119 of 1990 as both these involve common question.
2. The petitioners in both these cases filed suits on 2-1-1982 against the respondents. In the plaint it was stated that suit land had been allotted to their respective fathers namely Fazal Din and Lal Din as Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) refugees; that Thallu father of Shamas Din respondent No,1 got the suit land confirmed in his favour on Khata No,107 R.L. H in the year 1973 and sold the same to the respondents vide Mutation No,1605 attested on 25-4-1974. The said confirmation of land on R.L. II and it further sale was stated to be illegal and void. In their written statements the respondents took the plea that the said Fazal Din and Lal Din had relinquished their rights in favour of said Thallu and as such the land was validly confirmed on R.L. II. Following in similar worded issues were framed in both the stiits:-
(1) Whether the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit? OPD 1 to 3.
(2) Whether the plaintiffs are estopped to file this suit by their words and conduct? OPD 1 to 3.
(3) Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 1 to 3.
(4) Whether the valuation of suit for purposes of court-fee is not correct if so what is the correct valuation and its effect? OPD 1 to 3.
(5) Whether the suit is time-barred? OPD 1 to 3.
(6) Whether the order of allotment in favour of defendants 1 to 3 is void, without jurisdiction and what is its effect? OPP.
(7) Whether the plaintiffs are allottees of the suit land? OPP.
(8) Relief.
' The evidence of the parties was recorded. Issues Nos.3 and 4 were not pressed. Issues Nos. 1, 2, 5 and 6 were found against the petitioners. However, Issue No,7 found in favor of the petitioner. Both the suits were dismissed vide judgments and decrees, dated 7-4-1987. The petitioners filed first appeals which came to be heard by the learned Additional District Judge Gujranwala. The learned Additional District. Judge reversed the finding of the learned trial Court on issue No,
2. However, endings on issues Nos. .1 and 5 were upheld. It appears that since the findings adverse to the petitioners was recorded on Issue No, 6 by the learned Trial Court as corollary to its finding on Issue No, 2 and this finding was reversed by learned Additional District Judge, his judgment is silent about Issue No,6. The first appeal, however, were dismissed on the basis of findings recorded on Issues No,1 and 5 by the learned Additional District Judge vide judgment and decree, dated 22-3- 1989.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners argues that it has been concurrently found that the land stood allotted to the petitioners as J&K refugees in lieu of ration. According to the learned counsel this land could not have been transferred to the predecessor-ininterest of respondent No, 1 to satisfy his claim on R.L.
11. No one has turned up for the respondents. Despite the fact that they are represented by Ch. Muhammad Abdullah, Advocate, whose name duly stands published in the cause list today but he has not turned up by despite several calls. They are proceeded against ex parte.
4. I have gone through the copies of record appended with both these civil revisions. It is admitted fact that land stood allotted to the petitioners as J&K refugees. Ever since the decision by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case Dost Muhammad and others v. Mst. Badal Jan and others (1976 SCM R 112) and of this Court in the case of Mst. Sakina Bibi and another v. Manila and 2 others (PLD 1977 Lah. 202). It has been consistent view of the superior judiciary of the country that land once allotted to J&K refugees on temporary basis in lieu of ration stands sold to the Ministry of Kashmir Affairs and goes out of the compensation pool and as "such the Land Settlement Authorities are left with no jurisdiction to deal with same including the allotting or transferring to displaced persons to satisfy their claim. I have examined the evidence on record and as would be evident from the reading of finding recorded by the learned Trial Court on Issue No,6. It is nothing but an apology. The learned Trial Court has itself referred to the relinquishment pleaded by the respondents as "alleged abdication of rights by the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs". There is neither any evidence nor is there reference to any evidence that rights were so relinquished. The plea on the face of it was absurd. There is no gain saying the fact that a temporary allotment is not alienable. In fact there are authorities to the effect that temporary allotment cannot even be inherited. There is thus, no question of any temporary allotted relinquishing his allotment in favour of another person. Needless to add that there is no proof rather it was not even the case of the respondents that the said rights were surrendered in favour of Government by the allottees. Finding on Issue No,2 recorded by the learned trial Court had already been reversed by the learned Additional District Judge. This leaves Issues Nos.1 and 5. The findings of the learned Additional District Judge on both these issues are erroneous, The suits were filed in the year 1982 when all the Evacuee Property Laws stood repealed and Civil Court was only forum left for the petitioners to agitate their grievance. The act of confirming the suit land, which stood admittedly temporarily allotted to the petitioners is wholly without jurisdiction and the Civil Court being the Court of plenary jurisdiction is fully competent to declare the same as without jurisdiction. So far as the Issue No,5 is concerned, in the absence of any allegation and proof that temporary allotment was ever cancelled to the knowledge and notice of the petitioners, there is no question of suits becoming barred by time. The findings of the learned Additional District Judge on both said issues are accordingly reversed. Reference to be made to the case of Nihal Din alias Lal Khan and others v. Muhammad Hussain and 3 others (1991 M LD 2167).
5. The result of the above discussion is that civil revisions are allowed. The judgments and decrees passed by both the learned Courts below are set aside and suit of the petitioner are decreed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.