This is a civil revision petition under section 115, C.P.C. Against the judgment and decrees, dated 11- 9-1998 and 26-3-1997 passed by the learned Additional District Judge and Senior Civil Judge, respectively, vide which the plaint of the petitioner has been returned for want of jurisdiction.
2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner Amanullah instituted a suit in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, D.I. Khan, against Secretary, Local Government and 6 others for permanent injunction to the effect that defendants Nos.4, 5 and 6 should cancel the lease dated 30-8-1974 in favour of respondent No.7 as the said respondent No.7 is not lessee of the premises. In para of the plaint, the eviction of respondent No.7 was sought from Khasra No.6529 as an illegal occupier and in the 3rd part, perpetual injunction was sought against defendants that they should not interfere in the possession and occupation of Khasra No.6529 as the plaintiff is the bona fide resident of D.I. Khan and is the owner of the said property. The plaintiff alleged that the suit Khasra No.6529 has got so many Khana Shumari Nos. And according to Jamabandi for the 1986-87 he is the owner and that defendants Nos. l to 7 are illegally posing themselves to be owners of the said property as the suit- property is recorded as Abadi Deh. This property has been leased out to respondent No.7 by respondent No.6 on 3-8-1974 and -that this action of respondents Nos.4 to 6 is against the spirit of the Local Government Ordinances of 1972 and 1979, that defendant No.7 wants to transfer the suit- property to some other persons in order to construct a Commercial Plaza and the said Plaza if constructed will hamper the privacy of the present plaintiff and it will become a permanent private nuisance.
3. The suit was vehemently contested by respondents Nos. l to 6 while respondent No.7 did not file his written statement and instead preferred an application under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. For dismissal of the suit. This application was strenuously resisted by the plaintiff and after hearing the arguments of the respective parties, the learned trial Court vide its order, dated 26-3-1997, upheld that in view of section 11 of the Public Properties (Removal of Encroachment) Act, 1977, the jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred and thus, the suit of the plaintiff cannot be entertained, so the trial Court returned the plaint under Order VII, Rule 10, C.P.C. With the direction to seek his remedy in the appropriate forum if so desired. Plaintiff Amanullah Khan preferred an appeal in the Court of learned Additional District Judge, D.I. Khan against the order of Senior Civil Judge, dated 26-3-1997.
The appellate Court after hearing the respective parties and going through the record especially sections 2, 11 and 13 of N.-W.F.P. Public Properties (Removal of Encroachment) Act, 1977, dismissed the appeal of the plaintiff, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Feeling aggrieved from the said order, dated 11-9-1998, the petitioner Amanullah Khan has preferred the instant revision petition in this Court on the ground that the orders of the two Courts below are not correct and the point of law has not been properly elaborated, that the disputed property is a private property and is not a public property and that without recording evidence, the order of the trial Court lacks legal force.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record with their assistance.
5. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that as the trial Court has not recorded the evidence and as such it cannot return the plaint to the plaintiff and according to him the suit-property, as per Revenue Record, is recorded as Abadi Deh in which several owners are mentioned and there is nothing on the record with regard to the ownership of Municipal Committee.
6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is not correct as all his objections have been meted out in sections 2, 11 and 13 of the N.-W.F.P. Public Properties (Removal of Encroachment)
Act, 1977. The material section in this regard is section 11 of the Act (ibid) which for convenience sake, is reproduced:-- "Section 11. No Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any proceeding, grant any injunction or make any order in relation to a dispute that any property is not a public property or that any lease or licence in respect of such public property has not been determined for the purpose of this Ordinance, or anything done or intended or purported to be done under this Ordinance."
A cursory glance at section 11 of the Act (ibid) clearly shows that this section solves the whole of the problems. There is a dispute regarding the present property whether this is a public property and there is also a dispute on the said property with regard to the lease in favour of defendant No.7. So, the only forum is the Special Tribunal created by the Provincial Government under the said Ordinance/Act and the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is totally barred and thus, the trial Court has correctly returned the plaint and the order of the Appellate Court is also correct by dismissing the appeal. Accordingly, the revision petition in hand being devoid of any legal force, stands dismissed.