JUDGMENT MRS. FAKHAR-UN-NISA KHOKHAR, J.- Brief facts in this Civil Revision are that the petitioner being landless owner was allotted 4 kanals of land under Five Years Temporary Cultivation Scheme from Kharif, 1975 to 1980. He applied for proprietory rights and was allowed for the grant of proprietory right on 12.10.1980 under aforesaid Scheme by the Collector, Sahiwal. Later on Okara became a District. The proprietory rights granted by the District Collector were reviewed on 11.11.1984 after seeking sanctions from the Commissioner. Petitioner filed an appeal against the aforesaid order which was dismissed on 28.5.1986 by Addl. Commissioner (Revenue). Being aggrieved by order dated 11.11.1984 passed by District Collector and that of A. D.1. Commissioner dated 28.5.1986, petitioner filed a suit for declaration challenging both the orders in Civil Court. However, he failed to place judgment dated 28.5.1986 alongwith plaint and he also did not produce the judgment in evidence. The suit was contested by the defendant: by filing written statement and on the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed
(1) Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action? OPD
(2) Whether this Court has got no jurisdiction? OPD.
(3) Whether the suit is time-barred? OPD.
(4) Whether the plaintiff has not come in the Court with clean hands and as such is not entitled to any relief? OPD.
(5) Whether the verification of the plaint is defective and as such the suit is liable to be dismissed?
OPD.
(6) Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the disputed land? OPP.
(7) Whether the impugned orders dated 11.11.1984 and 28.5.1986 passed by the Collector District Okara and Additional Commissioner Consolidation respectively are illegal, void; without jurisdiction, mala fide and not maintainable? OPP.
(8) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree prayed for? OPP.
(9) Relief.
2. The parties produced their evidence. The learned Civil Court vide judgment and decree dated 27.4.1994 dismissed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction filed by the appellant. This judgment was assailed in appeal and the learned Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 14.5.1995 dismissed the appeal. Against this concurrent finding of the Courts below the instant civil revision has been filed.
3. Arguments advanced by the learned counsel for petitioner are that after grant of proprietory rights to the petitioner on 12.10.1980, only Board of Revenue had authority and jurisdiction under Section 30(2) of the Colonization of Government Lands Act to withdraw the proprietory rights acquired by the petitioner and the Courts below have failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in them under the law. It is further contended that the allotment under Temporary Cultivation Scheme from Kharif 1975 inwards upto this period was never cancelled, therefore, the judgment of Courts below are outcome of mis-reading of evidence on record and no presumption of truth is attached to the entries in Khasra girdawaries.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that both the judgments of Courts below are well- reasoned and the jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred by Section 36 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act. She further submitted that in fact the present petitioner was not found to be in cultivating possession of the disputed land on target date given under the terms and conditions of Temporary Cultivation Scheme dated 3.9.1979.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for parties and perused the record. Petitioner by filing a civil suit has challenged orders dated 11.11.1984 and 28.5.1986. Order dated 11.11.1984 is an order whereby district Collector, Okara observed that the allottee Muhammad Naeem Khalid does not deserve grant of proprietory rights as he had remained absent throughout from Court proceedings and sanction had been obtained from Commissioner Multan Division for review under Section 163 of the Land Revenue Act. The allottee had not been found to be in Cultivating possession in Kharif 1977 and also failed to appear before the Collector, who vide order dated 8.11.1982 dismissed the application for grant of proprietory rights and now order dated 12.10.1980 granting the petitioner proprietory rights is reviewed. Petitioner filed an appeal before Additional Commissioner, which too was dismissed on 28.5.1986, this order under challenge was not exhibited in evidence. However, the petitioner appeared as PW.1 and produced PW.2, Chiragh and Ex.P. 1 to Ex. P.5 showing entries in Khasragirdawaries. The defendant produced Muhammad Hassan, Patwari, and the copy of order of District Collector Ex.D.I, Order dated" 11.11.1984 Ex. D.2 and copy of Khasragirdawari Ex. D.3.
6. I have carefully examined both the judgments, those are issue were finding and delivered after perusal of complete evidence. The provisions of Section 36 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act are specific bar to the jurisdiction of Civil Court. Petitioner filed an appeal before Additional Commissioner, who vide order dated 28.5.1986 dismissed the appeal and the judgment of District Collector merged into judgment of Addl. Commissioner. Petitioner was very much within his right to agitate the matter before the Revenue Authorities for the reasons that the Board of Revenue from time to time issues Notifications and letters, which carry the force of law and petitioner is still possessed with the remedy to agitate the same before the Revenue Forum subject to the right of adverse party.
7. For what I have discussed above, interference in the findings of both the Courts below are hereby declined and the Civil Revision is dismissed. No order as to costs.