' On 2-10-1991 the petitioner filed a suit against the respondents. In the plaint it was stated that the land vestes in the respondent No,1 and is being administered by respondent No,2. It was allotted to the petitioner on 18-3-1971 under the 15 years Scheme (Chashma Barrage Affectee) and possession was ordered to be delivered vide order dated 18-9-1971 and the factum of delivery of possession was recorded in the Roznamcha Waqiati No,271 dated 26-3-1974 and he is continuing in possession eversince. He has brought the land under cultivation and is also residing there; that he had paid all the instalments and thus has fulfilled the terms of the allotment. It was complained that he has now learnt that without any notice, the allotment has been cancelled illegally. A declaration was accordingly sought that he was allottee in possession. Of the suit-land and the order dated 29-3- 1981 cancelling the same is illegal and void. In their written statement the respondents pleaded that possession had not been taken over by the allottee, the other allegations were denied.
' Following issues were framed by the learned trial Court:--
(1) Had plaintiff no cause of action or locus-standi to file this suit? OPD.
(2) Is suit barred by limitation? OPD.
(3) Has this Court no jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon this suit? OPD.
(4) Is suit wrongly valued? If so, what is its correct valuation? OPD.
(5) Is this suit incompetent for want of legal notice under TDA Act? OPD.
(6) Are defendants entitled to special costs under section 35-A C.P.C.? If so, to what extent? OPD.
(7) Was suit property allotted to the plaintiff vide order dated 18-9-1971 and possession delivered simultaneously? OPD.
(8) Was suit property improved upon and made cultivable by the plaintiff? OPP.
(9) Is order dated 29-3-1981 for the cancellation of the allotment of the plaintiff over the suit property illegal void and ineffective upon the rights of the plaintiffs? OPP.
(10) Is plaintiff entitled to the declaration prayed for?
(11) Relief.
' Evidence of the parties was recorded. The suit was decreed by the learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 17-10-1995. A first appeal filed by the respondents was heard by a learned Additional District Judge-II, Bhakkar, who allowed the same and dismissed the suit of the petitioners on 19-3-1998.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the learned Additional District Judge has mis-read the evidence on record while passing the impugned judgment and decree and the same is not sustainable. No one has turned up for the respondents despite service and notices issued for today. Case has been called repeatedly. They are accordingly proceeded against ex parte.
3. I have examined the copies of the records, with the assistance of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Now I find that the petitioner appeared as P.W.-1 and made a statement in accordance with the contents of his plaint. In cross-examination he denied the suggestion that he is not in possession. Exh. P.1 is the copy of the register Khasra Girdawari from Kharif 1984 to Rabi 1989 and the petitioner is recorded in possession. The classification of the land is Chahi. It is the case of the petitioner that he had dug a well to irrigate the land. Exh.P.2 is the copy of the Report No,271 dated 26-3-1974 in the Roznamcha Waqiati which narrates that the possession of the suit-land has been delivered to the petitioner. Exh.P.4 is the copy of the report on the basis whereof the land was cancelled. It has been reported that the petitioner allottee has not obtained the possession and is not paying the Lagan. Exh. P.3 and Exh. P.5 are the challan receipts for the deposit of the Lagan. Now as against the said evidence of the petitioner only a Junior Clerk, namely, Asghar Ali appeared as D.W.-1. He stated that he brought the register of allotment and that according to this register the land was allotted to the petitioner but he had not made an application for conferment of proprietary rights. In this cross-examination he did not deny rather expressed ignorance that the petitioner obtained the possession in due course of law; that he is still in possession and that he has fulfilled all the conditions of allotment. The witness further expressed ignorance as to whether any notice was served upon the petitioner before cancellation of the allotment. The witness also expressed ignorance that the petitioner has brought the land under cultivation, has built his house there and that he had paid all the instalments.
4. Having thus examined the said evidence I find this to be a case of mis-reading rather deliberate non-reading of the evidence on record so far as the impugned judgment of the learned Additional District Judge is concerned. The only ground on which the allotment was cancelled that the petitioner had not obtained the possession and that he is not paying Zar-i-Lagan. The said evidence led by the petitioner has not at all been rebutted by the respondents. On the other hand it was not at all denied by their witness that the petitioner was given possession in accordance with law; that he is continuing in possession; that he has paid all the instalments and that he has fulfilled all the terms of the allotment, I, therefore, do find that the learned Additional District Judge has acted without jurisdiction while passing the impugned judgment and decree inasmuch as he has failed to read the evidence while dismissing the suit of the petitioner. This civil revision accordingly is allowed. The impugned judgment and decree dated 19-3-1998 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-II, Bhakkar, is set aside while one passed by the learned trial Court dated 17-10-1995 is restored with no orders as to costs.