Find a Lawyer

Revision Applications No. 354 and 356 of 1962, decided on 3rd December, 1962.

‑Civil Courts have no jurisdiction to entertain suit against orders of revenue authori ties‑Usurpation of power made by Revenue Courts can be checked but not errors of judgment‑Order of Revenue Authority alleged to be on misappreciation of evidence‑Cannot be made subject matter of dispute in Civil Courts.

Province of West Pakistan v. Haji Muhammad Juman and another P L D 1960 Kar. 908 rel.

Noor Muhammad v. Chief Commissioner, Karachi and others Writ Petition No. 55 of 1958 (unreported) and Noor Muhammad v. Chief Commissioner, Karachi and others in Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. K‑15/61 (unreported) ref.

Provisions do not permit filing of civil suit against orders of Revenue Authority.

A. S. Pirzada for Appellant.

S. H. Rizvi and Jamaluddin Ahmed for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 3rd December 1962.

This judgment will dispose of Revision Application No. 354/ 1962 and Revision Application No. 356/1962 in which a common ‑question of law is involved.

2. Revision Application No. 354/1962 has arisen from the judgment of the learned District Judge, Sukkur, in Civil Mis cellaneous Appeal No. 33 of 1961, decided on the 26th of March 1962. In that case the .petitioner was granted 12 acres of land from Survey No. 41 in Deh Manghanwari Taluka Rohri, by the Assistant Revenue Officer, Sukkur, by his order dated the 28th of August 1956. The possession of land was given to him on the basis of the said grant. Respondent No. 2 had also given a bid, but it was rejected. He challenged the order of the Assistant Revenue Offcer, Sukkur, before the Revenue Officer, Sukkur, in appeal, which was allowed on the 25th of June 1958. Thereupon the petitioner challenged the order against him before the Commissioner, Khairpur Division, which was dismissed by the Assistant Commissioner on the 4th of May 1959. The matter was taken before the Board of Revenue in revision, which was summarily dismissed on the 5th of June 1959 without hearing the appellant or his counsel. A review petition was also dismissed by the Board of Revenue on the 1st of August 1959. The petitioner challenged the orders of the Revenue Authorities in Civil Suit No. 52 of 1960 in the First Class Civil Court, Sukkur, on the ground that the Revenue Authorities have decided the matter in dispute on a misappreciation of evidence and male fide.

3. The learned Subordinate Court framed two preliminary issues, reproduced below :‑

(1) Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to hear the suit

(2) Whether the suit is time‑barred

The learned Subordinate Court dismissed the suit by judgment dated the 31st of May 1961 on the ground that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction in the matter. This judgment was upheld by Mr. K. M. Mirza, District Judge, Sukkur, in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 33 of 1961.

4. The second revision application filed by Abdul Ghafar arises out of Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No: 34 of 1961. In that case also the petitioner's ancestor Abdul Ghani along with others had put up an offer for grant of 12 acres of land of unassessed No. 41 in Deh Manghanwari, Taluka Rohri, and his offer was accepted.by the Assistant Revenue Officer, Sukkur Barrage, who granted the land to him on full rate. Dur Muhammad, the ancestor of respondents 2 to 4, had also offered for the land which was rejected. Deceased Dur Muhammad filed an appeal before the Revenue Officer, Sukkur Barrage, which was accepted on the 25th of June 1958. This order was challenged before the Commissioner of Khairpur Division, but the appeal was dismissed on the 4th of May 1958 by the Assistant Commissioner, Khair pur. The dispute between the parties was further agitated in revision before the Board of Revenue. This was summarily dismissed on the 5th of June 1959. The review petition was also dismissed by the Board of Revenue on the 1st of August 1960. The petitioner challenged the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities in Suit No. 53 of 1960 in the First Class Court, Sukkur, for declaration and injunction on the ground that the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities are based on misappre ciation of evidence and were male fide. In this case also the learned Subordinate Court struck two preliminary issue‑s referred to above. The learned trial Court by judgment dated th‑. 31st of May 1961 held that it had no jurisdiction to try the suit. This finding of law was upheld in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 34 of 1961.

5. In both the above‑mentioned revisions the petitioners' contention is that the view of the Subordinate Court that it had no jurisdiction in the matter is not in accordance with law. Pirzada Abdus Sattar, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has urged before me that a suit against the orders of the Revenue Authorities can be filed under section 37 (3) of the Sind Land Revenue Code within one year of the impugned order. He further urged that under section 11 of the Sind Revenue Jurisdiction Act of 1876 by implication a private party is allowed to file a suit against the Government on account of any act or omission of any Revenue Officer after exhausting all his rrmedies allowed by the law for the time being in .force within the period of limitation for bringing such suit. The learned counsel further urged that the view of the Subordinate Courts that they had no jurisdiction to entertain suits against the orders of Revenue Authorities is not a correct position in law and must be set aside.

6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that under section 37 (3) of the Sind Land Revenue Code and section 11 of the Sind Revenue Jurisdiction Act, 1876 every private party is impiiedly permitted to file a suit against the orders of the Revenue Authorities has no bearing on the facts of the present case. These provisions of law only lay down the period of limitation for filing suits against the orders passed by Revenue‑ Authorities, and further lay down that no suit will be maintainable in the Civil Courts until and unless all the available remedies of appeal etc. have been exhausted by the aggrieved party.

7. The real question for consideration in these matters is whether the Civil Courts have jurisdiction to entertain suits against the orders of the Revenue Authorities on the ground that they were passed on a misapprecication of evidence or on an erroneous view of the law. It is not contended before me that the learned Revenue Authorities, whose orders were challenged in the above mentioned suits, have acted male fide because in such an event the position would have been different and on such an allegation the Civil Court would be competent to go into the question of male fide and set aside the impugned order if it was based on such considerations. In both the cases the land in dispute belong to the Government. Certain offers were invited. In the first instance the offer of the petitioner was accepted and the aggrieved parties challenged the orders of the Assistant Revenue Officers before the Appellate Authorities who accepted their claim and set aside the orders granting the land to the petitioners. In their turn the petitioners challenged the orders passed against them before the higher authorities and were unsuccessful. The question to whom the lands in dispute should have been granted was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Revenue Authorities. Merely because the petitioners are dissatisfied with the finding of the learned Revenue Authorities on this point or the impugned orders are based on a misappreciation of evidence, such orders cannot be the subject‑matter of dispute in the Civil Courts. This question was considered at length by Qadeeruddin Ahmad; J. in the case of Province of West Pakistan v. Haji Muhammad Juman and another (P L D 1960 Kar. 908). In that case also the question was whether the propriety of the grant in favour of one of the parties by the Revenue Authorities could be challenged before the civil jurisdic tion. The learned Single Judge in that _ connection made the following observations :‑

" . . Civil Courts cannot sit in judgment over the decisions of the Revenue Officers if they have acted in exercise of their jurisdiction. There is a sharp, if sometimes fine distinction between jurisdiction and exercise of jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is the authority to hear and decide a question. It is sometimes exceeded in its exercise, but so long as a question is decided within the limits of a jurisdiction, it is immaterial, from juris dictional point of view, whether the decision is right or wrong. Unless jurisdiction is conferred by a provision of law the Civil Courts can check the errors of usurpation of power made by Revenue Courts or officers, but not the errors of their judgment. Correction of the errors of their judgment is the obligation of the proper Courts or officers in the hierarchy of the Courts or officers appointed under the legal system on the revenue side."

A similar question also arose before a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 55 of 1958 Noor Muhammad v. Chief Commissioner, Karachi and others decided on the 20th of April 1961. In that writ petition also propriety of the orders of the Revenue Authorities were challenged in respect of the grant of land to a private party. It was urged that once a grant has been made, there is no power in the higher Revenue Authorities to interfere with the orders of the Subordinate Revenue Authorities. This contention was repelled and the following observations were made

"A plain reading of this form shows the nature of the grant which has been expressly made subject to the provisions of the Bombay Land Revenue Code. These Kabuliats are not even signed by the Collector. These are not in the nature of the contract executed by the Collector on behalf of the Governor -General or the President and, far from excluding the provision for appeal and revision as .contained in Chapter XIII of the Code, such grants are made expressly subject to the provisions of the Code which naturally include the provision for appeal and revision. We find no substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the grants to his client are not liable to be cancelled or interfered with by higher Revenue Authorities in exercise of their powers in appeal or revision. The orders of the Collector granting these lands were admittedly subject to appeal to the Revenue Commissioner and the Revenue Commissioner having modified those orders and granted certain portions of those lands to the respondents, it is futile to urge that the grant cannot be interfered with on the ground that it has ripened into a contract."

This matter was taken before their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. K‑15/16 and their Lordships upheld the view, of the High Court by their judgment dated the 9th of June 1961 and summarily dismissed the application for leave. In view of the decision of the Division Bench in the above‑mentioned case, the view of Qadeeruddin Ahmed, J. referred to above, cannot be said to be in any way erroneous. The facts of the present case are even worse than those which were in the writ petition before the Division Bench. There is no allegation in the present case that any Kabuliat or grant was issued by the Collector in favour of the petitioners. On the other hand the grant of the land in favour of the petitioners or their ancestors was immediately challenged before the higher Revenue Authorities. The Revenue Officer set aside the grant in favour of the petitioners and granted the lands to the contesting respondents. This order was maintained by the higher Appellate or Revisional Authorities. The question whether the land should have been granted to the respondents or to the petitioners was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Revenue Authorities and cannot be challenged before the Civil Court solely on the ground that it was passed on misappreciation of evidence or erroneously against the law.

8. In these circumstances I find no force in these revision petitions and dismiss them with costs.

R. B. A./A. H.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.