MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.--- The admitted facts of this case are that the suit land was temporarily allotted to .The father of the respondents as J&K refugees in lieu of Ratian/maintenance. After consolidation the suit land was transferred to the respondents on 30.7.1965. The suit was filed with the grievance that. D.S.C. (L) had illegally confirmed the said land on the RL.11 Khata of respondent No. 4 who then proceeded to transfer the land to respondent No. 5 vide mutation No. 197 attested on 23.5.1997 who in his turn sold the land fo the present petitioners vide mutation No. 201 attested on 20.10.1967. In the plaint it was stated that respondents Nos. 1 to 3 had filed an appeal before the Settlement Commissioner, Lahore which was dismissed on 12.3.1978. Present suit was filed on 19.4.1978, seeking a declaration that the confirmation of the land in favour of the said respondent No. 4 and the consequent further transfers including the one in favour of the present petitioners are illegal and void. The suit was contested only by the present petitioners who objected to jurisdiction of the Civil Court to try the suit; that the suit is barred by time as according to the petitioners the land had been cancelled by the D.S.C. On 21.9.1964 and thereafter it was transferred to respondent No. 4 on 12.9.1966. Issues were framed. Evidence of the parties was recorded. The learned Trial Court proceeded to dismiss the suit vide judgment and decree dated 24.11.1981. Feeling aggrieved respondents Nos. 1 to 3 filed an appeal which was heard by a learned Additional District Judge, Gujranwala who allowed the same and decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 25.10.1984.
2. Learned counsel contends that the suit was barred by time and that the learned Additional District Judge has wrongly proceeded to decree the suit. No one has turned up for the respondents.
3. I have gone through the record of the case, with the assistance of the learned counsel present. I may point out here that the issues framed on merits were issues Nos. 1 and 2 which are reproduced here:-
(1) Whether the orders in question passed by the D..S.A.C. And subsequently confirmed in appeal by the Settlement Commissioner on 12.3.1978 are ma/a fide, illegal, void and without jurisdiction? OPP.
(2) Whether the mutations Nos. 197 and 201 are fictitious, collusive, without consideration and illegal? OPP.
Both these issues were found in favour of the respondents by the learned Trial Court. However, issue No. 4 which encompassed the objection of limitation was found in favour of the petitioners.
Before the learned Additional District Judge the petitioners did not question the findings on issues Nos. 1 and 2. However, the learned Additional District Judge found that not only the orders sought to be challenged were illegal and without jurisdiction but were in fact declared to be so by the learned Trial Court. He, therefore, came to the conclusion that since the proceedings/orders were void, there was no question of limitation and as such proceeded to reverse the findings on issue No. 4 'and to decree the suit.
4. Learned counsel insists that the matter is governed by Article 14 of the Limitation Act, 1908 which provides a period of one year filing a suit in case a person feels 'aggrieved of an order passed by an officer of the Government in his official capacity.
5. To my mind Article 14 would not be applicable to an order which is found to be without jurisdiction. Learned counsel then refers to the cases of S. Sharif Ahmad Hashmi Vs. Chairman, Secreening Committee, Lahore and another (1978 SCM R 367) and Nawab Syed Raunaq A.I, etc. Vs. Chief Settlement Commissioner and others (PLD 1973 SC 236). There is no cavil with the proposition laid down by the apex Court in the said judgments but it has to be seen as to what would be the period of limitation. Article 14 being inapplicable the only other Article attracted would be Article 120 of the Limitation Act, 1908. It is a matter of record that an appeal was taken against the order of confirmation in favour of respondent No. 4 and it was decided only on 12.3.1978 (Ex.D.2). Since the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 were availing their remedy, they had to come to the Civil Court against the final order and to my mind the suit 'filed on 19.4.1978, in the circumstances of the case, is within time, both under Article 120 as also Article 14 of the Limitation Act, 1908,
6. Although the crucial findings on the merits of the case recorded by the learned Trial Court, whereby it was held that neither the land was cancelled from the name of respondents Nos. 1 to 3 nor could it be transferred to respondent No. 4, have not been challenged in the appeal, yet the learned counsel made an attempt to attack the same in the course of his arguments.
7. It is by now well-settled that the land allotted temporarily to a J&K refugee goes out of compensation pool and in fact it stands sold to the Ministry of Kashmir Affairs. It was so held by this Court in the -case of Mst. Sakina Bibi and another Vs. Mamla and 2 others (PLD 1977 Lahore 202). To similar effect is the judgment in the case of Dost Muhammad and others Vs. Mst. Badal Jan and others (1976 SCM R 112), Ghulam Muhammad and another Vs. Ahmad Khan and another (PLD 1991 SC 391) and Muhammad Younas and 6 others Vs. Allah Lok and three others (1989 SCM R 323). It would be appropriate to quote some observations from the judgment in the case of Nihal Din alias Lal Khan and 2 others Vs. Muhammad Hussain and 3 others (1991 M LD 2167) by Mr. Justice Allah Nawaz (as his Lordship then was). His lordship after recapitulating almost the entire case-law on the subject proceeded to hold as under:- "10. The ratio deducible from the examination of afore-noted law and the authoritative pronouncement in the aforementioned authority, is that evacuee agricultural land allotted to ration card-holders/refugees from Jammu and Kashmir, stands transferred to the Ministry of Azad Jammu and Kashmir and is excluded from compensation pool for the purposes of settlement in favour of then refugees form Jammu and Kashmir with verified claims. Judged from this angle it is quite clear that the allotment in favour of the petitioners by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner was without any legal sanction. It was coram non judice and was a mere nullity in the eye of law. As such the Additional Settlement Commissioner was well within his right to adjudge this allotment as having been made without any lawful authority. The impugned order, therefore, is .Eminently just and in consonance with the provisions of law . it As regards the question of limitation it is well-settled principle of law that the orders which are ab initio void, are nullity in the eye of law. The plea of limitation cannot be pressed into service in regard to such orders. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 that the appeal filed by Allah Rakha was barred by time is accordingly found to be untenable and is repelled."
8. It is a matter of record as held by the learned Trial Court and confirmed by the learned Additional District Judge that there is no evidence whatsoever on the record that the temporary allotment made to respondents Nos. 1 to 3 was ever cancelled validly. In this state of affairs the several judgments referred to by' me above are squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. I find that the impugned judgment of the learned Additional District Judge is not only valid and legal but is eminently just. This Civil Revision is without any force and is accordingly dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.