C.R.No.

191-D/2001/BWP Page 1

JUDGMENT SHEET

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, BAHAWALPUR BENCH,

BAHAWALPUR.
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT.

Civil Revision No.191-D/2001.

Province of Punjab etc. Versus Anwar Ali.

Date of 1.7.2014.
Hearing
Petitioner By Mr. Muhammad Bashir Lakhesir, Asstt. Advocate
General with Waseem Hassan Raja, Naib
Tehsildar Dahranwla and Asad Sher, Halqa
Patwari.

Respondent Mr. Nadeem Iqbal Chaudhry, Advocate.

By

ZAFARULLAH KHAN KHAKWANI, J.- Anwar Ali

respondent/plaintiff was allotted agricultural land on lease
measuring 104-Kanals & 5-Marlas in Chak No.204/Murad
Gharby, Tehsil Chishtian, District Bahawalnagar by the order
dated 03.09.1975 passed by Assistant Commissioner/Collector
Sub-Division Chishtian under temporary cultivation scheme for
05-years starting from Khareef 1975 to Rabee 1980. The
respondent paid all the requisite dues for whole period of lease.
During the subsistence of the above referred lease, the
Government of Punjab announced a policy for grant of
proprietary rights to the lease holders under Temporary
Cultivation Scheme vide notification dated 03.09.1979 and last
date for submission of application for grant of lease rights was
fixed as 31.12.1979.

2. The respondent having eligibility vide application dated

13.12.1979 applied for grant of proprietary rights under the said
scheme to the competent authority on the ground that he is in
C.R.No.191-D/2001/BWP Page 2

cultivation possession of the said land and developed the same

into cultivable land with his hard work and labour after incurring
amount on it. The said application filed by respondent was
dismissed by District Collector, Bahawalnagar vide order dated
03.12.1990 on the ground that the petitioner is civil servant and
is working in Education Department. The appeal filed by the
respondent before Commissioner Bahawalpur Division was
dismissed vide order dated 20.06.1991 and the revision filed by
respondent before Board of Revenue, Punjab also met with the
same fate on 23.06.1992.

3. The respondent feeling aggrieved of the said orders

instituted a civil suit on 28.09.1992 in the court of competent
jurisdiction at Chishtian against the above said three orders
passed against him. The petitioners contested the said suit by
filing written statement and raising different preliminary as well
as other objections in it. On divergent pleadings of the parties,
the learned trial court framed following five Issues vide its order
dated 27.06.1994:-
ISSUES.
1. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action and
locus standi to file this case? OPD.

2. Whether this Court lacks jurisdiction to try the

case?

3. Whether the impugned orders of the defendants

dated 03.12.1990, 20.06.1991 and 23.06.1992
are illegal and void and are not binding upon the
plaintiff? OPP.

4. If Issue No.3, is proved whether plaintiff is

entitled for the grant of proprietary rights of the
suit property? OPP.

5. Relief.

4. At trial, the plaintiff entered the witness box as PW.1 and

produced Muhammad Rafiq as PW.2. He also produced
documentary evidence, detail of which is as under:-
C.R.No.191-D/2001/BWP Page 3

Ex.P.1 Copy of order of A.C. dated 03.09.1975,

Ex.P.2 Copy of Fard-e-Taqseem,
Ex.P.3 Copy of challan,
Ex.P.4 Copy of order of D.C.,
Ex.P-5 Copy of order of Commissioner,
Ex.P.6 Copy of order of Board of Revenue,
Ex.P.7 Copy of order of Member Colonies,
Ex.P.8 Copy of order of Education Department,
Ex.P.9 Copy of order of Member Colonies,
Ex.P.10 Copy of order of Member Board of Revenue dated
26.11.1986,
Ex.P.11 Copy of judgment of Addl.District Judge dated
11.07.1995,
Ex.P.12 Copy of Khasragirdawari 1990-91,
Ex.P.13 Copy of Khasragirdawari,
Ex.P.14 Copy of Khasragirdawari of Chak No.204,
Ex.P.15 Copy of Khasragirdawari 1985 to 1989,
Ex.P.16 Copy of order of D.C. dated 24.07.1990, and
Ex.P.17 Copy of Khasragirdawari 1993 to 1997
and closed his evidence.

5. In rebuttal, a senior Clerk of Deputy Commissioner,

Bahawalnagar appeared at trial as DW.1. Following documents
were also tendered in evidence on behalf of the defendants:-

Ex.D.1 Copy of report of Colony Assistant Chishtian,

Ex.D.2 Copy of order of D.C. dated 12.11.1985,
Ex.D.3 Copy of Chakbandi dated 15.02.1985,
Ex.D.4 Copy of order of Additional Commissioner,
Ex.D.5 Copy of plaint,
Ex.D.6 Copy of order of Addl. Commissioner dated
21.01.1987,
Ex.D.7 Copy of order of D.C. Bahawalnagar dated
03.12.1990,
Ex.D.8 Copy of plaint titled as Anwar Ali vs. Province of
Punjab,
Ex.D.9 Copy of plaint titled as Anwar Ali vs. Province of
Punjab, etc.,
Ex.D.10 Copy of order of Commissioner dated
26.06.1991,
Ex.D.1 Copy of order of Member Board of Revenue,
Ex.D.12 Copy of service book of Anwar Ali,
Ex.D.13 Copy of Roznamcha Waqiati,
Ex.D.14 Copy of Jamabandi,
Ex.D.15 Copy of mutation and
Ex.D.16 Copy of letter of Deputy Secretary.

6. After close of evidence of both the parties, the learned trial

court after hearing arguments and perusing the record decreed
the suit vide judgment dated 28.07.1997. Feeling aggrieved, the
C.R.No.191-D/2001/BWP Page 4

petitioners filed an appeal before District Judge, Bahawalnagar

which was heard by a learned Additional Distt. Judge,
Bahawalnagar who vide judgment dated 11.12.2000 dismissed
the same by upholding the judgment and decree passed by the
learned trial court. Hence this civil revision.

7. Arguments have been heard and record perused.

8. The minute examination of evidence leaves no doubt that

at the time of grant of original lease to the respondent under
Temporary Cultivation Scheme in 1975, the petitioner was not in
government service and was eligible for grant of lease. He paid
all the requisite dues to Government of Punjab for the whole of
the tenancy period i.e. from 1975 to 1980 and in this way
valuable right had accrued in his favour during this period. It is
also admitted that the respondent filed application for grant of
proprietary rights within stipulated period contemplated in Policy
dated 03.09.1979. The possession of the respondent on the
disputed land is also established from the record. Even
otherwise, in the said Policy dated 03.09.1979 under which the
said lease has been granted, there is no bar on grant of
proprietary rights to the government servants. The preponderance
of evidence available on the record fully supports the claim of
the respondent/plaintiff. The revenue record produced and duly
exhibited by the plaintiff/respondent during the course of trial
without any objection had fully supported his stance. Neither the
courts below while recording findings of fact have either mis-
read the evidence nor ignored any material piece of evidence
while delivering both judgments and decrees impugned herein.

9. There is no cavil to the proposition and it has also been

held by the superior courts repeatedly that while dealing with the
matters under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the
revisional court is vested with the powers only to examine three
elements as specified in Section 115 (1), (a), (b) & (c) of Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908. These powers are supervisory in nature
C.R.No.191-D/2001/BWP Page 5

and not like powers of Court of Appeal. Revision is not a right

but is a privilege and is available only where right of appeal has
not been given in the Statute, whereas, the appeal is a right
created by the Statute.

10. The Honble Supreme Court of India while dealing with

the said revisional powers in the case of Shiv Shakti Co-op.
Housing Society, Nagpur V. M/s Swaraj Developers and
others (AIR 2003 SUPREME COURT 2434), held that:-

It is fairly a well settled position in law that the

right of appeal is a substantive right. But there is no
such substantive right in making an application
under S.115. Section 115 is essentially a source of
power for the High Court to supervise the
subordinate courts. It does not in any way confer a
right on a litigant aggrieved by any order of the
subordinate court to approach the High Court for
relief. The scope for making a revision under S.115
is not linked with a substantive right.

11. It is also too settled to admit any debate that this Court
while exercising powers under revisional jurisdiction, dealing
with the cases involving concurrent findings of the fact of the
courts below is not obliged to upset said findings. This
jurisdiction is purely for correction of jurisdictional errors and
material irregularities. Reliance may be placed on the cases of
Cantonment Board through Executive Officer, Cantt. Board,
Rawalpindi vs. Ikhlaq Ahmed and others (2014 SCMR 161),
Administrator, Thal Development through EACO Bhakkar
and others vs. Ali Muhammad (2012 SCMR 730) and
Anwar Zaman and 5 others vs. Bahadur Sher and others
(2000 SCMR 431).

12. For the reasons recorded above, I found no irregularity,

jurisdictional defect or any mis-reading and non-readings of
evidence in this case. Resultantly, this revision petition is devoid
C.R.No.191-D/2001/BWP Page 6

of merits, thus, the same stands dismissed with no order as to

costs.

(ZAFARULLAH KHAN KHAKWANI)

JUDGE

APPROVED FOR REPORTING.

JUDGE
*SULTAN*