Brief facts necessary for the disposal of the instant revision petition are that the plaintiff (hereinafter called the petitioner) instituted a suit against the defendants. (hereinafter called the respondents) seeking a declaration to the effect that order, dated 14-3-1967 of the Collector regarding cancellation of his allotment of Ihata in question (detailed in the plaint) and order, dated 6-6-1967 passed by the Additional . Commissioner, Multan dismissing his appeal, are void, without lawful authority and of no legal effect. It is alleged in the plaint that the Ihata in question was allotted to the petitioner on 26-10-1966 and he paid the entire price on 4-11-1966. Requisite charges for sale-deed were also deposited on 10-12-1966. However, respondent No,2 Muhammad Ali Shah (not being representative by his legal heirs) moved an application to the Collector for recalling of his order of allotment in favour of the petitioner. This application was allowed by the Collector vide his order, dated 14-3-1967 and the petitioner's appeal against the same was also dismissed by the Additional Commissioner, Multan vide his order dated 6-6-1967, which have been assailed through the suit.
2. The suit was vehemently contested and the learned trial Court keeping in view the pleading of the parties, framed the following issues:--
(1) Whether this Court has jurisdiction to try this suit?
(2) Whether the plaintiff is in possession of Ihata in dispute and whether the suit is maintainable in its present form?
(3) Whether orders of Collector, Sahiwal dated 14-3-1967 and of Additional Commissioner, Multan Division dated 6-6-1967 are null void and inoperative upon the plaintiff's rights?
(4) Relief.
3. Parties led evidence in support of their respective assertions. Thereafter, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit of the petitioner vide its judgment and decree dated 6-2-1979. On issue No,1 the learned trial Court held that Civil Court had jurisdiction to try the suit. On issue No,2 it was held that the petitioner was in possession of Ihata in question, though he was not inducted in due course of law by the competent Authority. Issue No,3 was decided against the petitioner by holding that the impugned order of the Revenue Authorities had been passed in a lawful manner and the same were neither void nor illegal. The petitioner filed an appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court which was also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sahiwal while his judgment and decree dated 11-5-1981.
4. The instant revision petition calls in question the aforesaid judgments and decrees.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner . vehemently contends that the petitioner is in possession of the suit property right from the date of its allotment i,e, 26-101966 after having paid its entire sale price on 11-4-1966 and the requisite charges for the execution of sale-deed on 10-12-1966 the petitioner has became the full owner of the same despite no sale-deed having been executed as the same was merely a formality. To support it, the learned counsel has placed reliance on PLD 1964 SC 842, Bashir Ahmad, and others v. Member Board of Revenue and others PLD 1978 Lah. 1146, Azmat All v. Member Board of Revenue and others PLD 1978 Lah. 1148. It is also urged that respondent No,2 was given Ihata in question on temporary lease, which may be cancelled at any time by the Revenue Authorities because lease had not conferred any right or title on the lease to claim its proprietary rights. Therefore, case of the petitioner has an upper edge over the claim of respondent No,2. Reference had been made to Muhammad Ishaq v. Abdul Ghani and 3 others 2000 SCMR 1083. In the nutshell the arguments of the learned counsel for petitioner are that the judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below have been passed on wrong premises of law and facts, resulting in grave miscarriage of justice.
6. On the other hand the learned counsel for the legal heirs of the respondent No,2 forcefully supports the impugned judgments and decrees by submitting that the same have been passed strictly in accordance with law and facts.
7. I have given due consideration to the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, perused the record and gone through the judgments cited at the Bar.
8. It is borne out from the record that the petitioner had earlier applied for obtaining the plot in question but the learned Collector rejected his prayer vide order dated 28-41965. Petitioner filed an appeal against the same on 4-5-1965 (Exh.D.8) but the same was also dismissed by the learned Additional Commissioner Revenue vide his order dated 1-6-1965 (Exh.D.7). These orders have not been further challenged, thus the same had attained finality. Latter on the Iham in question was allotted to Muhammad Ali Shah deceased respondent No,2 by the Collector vide his order dated 1-3-1966 on rental basis.. He paid the rent for one year on 2-3-1966 and Dakhai warrant had also been issued in his name. However, when the Ihata in question was not available for further allotment, petitioner again got the same allotted in connivance with the Revenue staff, on 26-10- 1966 but this order was latter on recalled by the Collector Sahiwal vide his order dated 14-3-1967 after having observed all the legal formalities including hearing of lengthy arguments of the parties and their counsels. This order of the Collector dated 14-3-1967 was further affirmed by the learned Additional Commissioner Revenue Multan who dismissed the appeal' of the petitioner against the same vide his order dated 6-6-1967. Both these orders have been passed strictly in accordance with law and facts of the case and no illegality or material irregularity has been committed by them while passing those orders. It is also pertinent to point out that the petitioner has not further challenged those orders before the Board of Revenue, rather rushed to the Civil Court.
9. The case of Alam Din (supra), cannot be made applicable to the present set of circumstances.
The facts of that case are quite distinguishable from the present one. In the cited case a widow of last male tenant deposited the price of the tenancy land, in 1934 before enactment of section 30-A (Colonization of Government Lands) (Punjab) Act (V of 1912) but the sale-deed was.- executed and registered in 1947. So, it was: held that widow was deemed to have acquired proprietary rights upon payment of price despite execution and registration of the sale-deed, latter on. But in the instant case admittedly the Ihata in question had already been given to respondent No,2 lease and the same was not available for further allotment and it was categorically held by the Collector while recalling his order of allotment made in favour of the petitioner that 'the same was passed on wrong/defective report of the Colony of his staff'. It was also observed by the Additional Commissioner Revenue while affirming this order of the Collector, "the appellant (now the petitioner) was guilty of practicing fraud on the Collector in collusion with the circular Patwari. Thus a favourable order obtained in a calendestine manner. through this misrepresentation and fraud cannot be allowed to remain permanently in the field as it is well-settled that the fraud vitiates even the most solemn proceedings. Reference can safely be made to Muhammad Bakhsh v.
Muhammad Ali 1984 SCMR 504.
10. Petitioner's possession of Ihata in question, as vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is of no avail to him as it has been categorically held that he had not obtained the possession in due course of law. The payment of sale price is also of not avail to him in the facts and circumstances of the case. It has been held on Nazar Hussain Shah v. Punjab Province through Collector Vehari and another 1989 SCMR 1060:-- Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1992):-- "petitioner's allotment of Ahata followed by his deposit of sale price---Petitioner's allotment cancelled in appeal and such Ahata was allotted to respondent petitioner's appeal against such order failed as also his Civil suit upto High Court in revision---Appeal against Collector's order whereby he had allotted Ahata 40 petitioner, having been accepted and petitioner having failed to successfully assail the appellate order could not have succeeded before Civil Court on basis of argument that by depositing payment in pursuance of allotment order, he had acquired a vested right petitioner thus having no case to succeed before Civil Court and his revision having rightly been dismissed by High Court, leave to appeal was refused."
11.The other judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, are also not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the instant case. Even in the authority 2000 SCMR 1083 quoted by the learned counsel for the petitioner it has been held that civil Court has no jurisdiction in the matter to adjudicate upon the rights of the parties in view of clear ouster of jurisdiction clause embodied in section 36 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912.
12.Other two cited cases PLD 1978 Lah. 1140 and 1146, the possession was delivered to the allottee by the competent Authorities themselves and the conveyance deed already executed and proprietary rights given -but in this case alleged possession of the petitioner was held to be unauthorized, which cannot be taken as a shelter for perpetuating gains obtained through deceitful means.
13. The learned Courts below have scanned almost the entire evidence available on the tile and arrived at fair and just conclusions, which are neither perverse nor arbitrary. I am convinced that the impugned judgments and decrees have been passed on a due appreciation of law and facts.
This being so, the same are immune from security through a petition filed under section 115, C.P.C.
Reference may be made to Abdul Hakeem v. Habib Ullah and 11 others 1997 SCMR 1139, Jam Pari v.
Muhammad Abdullah 1992 SCMR 786, Haji Muhammad Din v. Malik Muhammad Abdullah PLD 1994 SC 291, 1994 SCMR 818 and Abdul Ali Khan and others v. Muhammad Saleh 1998 SCMR 760.
For what has been stated above instant petition fails and the same is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.