Find a Lawyer

Revision Side No. 134 of 1952‑53, decided on 2nd March 1954, from District Attock.

Punjab Tenancy Act (XVJ of 1887), S. 38‑Abandonment of occupancy rights‑Question should be determined by suit and not during mutation proceedings.

The question of abandonment of occupancy right by a tenant should not be decided in a summary manner during mutation proceedings but should be determined by a suit.

Section 114, Tenancy Act does not apply to such a case.

Nur Muhammad, for Petitioner.

Malik Mirza Khan, for Respondents.

‑Mst. Begum Ji, petitioner was recorded as an occupancy tenant under Muzaffar Khan etc., respondents. On 13th July 1952, mutation No. 119 was entered by the petitioner to remove the name of the occupancy tenant from the Revenue Records and styled the mutation "abandonment of occupancy rights according to Agrarian Reforms". The Tabsildar Fateh Jang Khan Muhammad Anis Khan on 11th September 1952 took up the mutation at village Bhalut and noted that as verified by Yusaf (Lambardar of another estate) Begum Ji, occupancy tenant was absent for the last 30 years and her whereabouts were not known and that she had abandoned her occupancy rights. The mutation was sanctioned in favour of the landlords (respondents).

The appeal filed by the petitioner before the Revenue Assistant, exercising the powers of Collector was dismissed but the Collector of the district has forwarded the case to me by way of reference with his note dated 18th June 1953, (which should be read as a part of this order) recommending that the orders of both the Assistant Collector II Grades and that of the Collector (Revenue Assistant) are bad in law and should be quashed.

I have heard both the parties and have come to the conclusion that in deciding the mutation in question the Assistant Collector has gone out of the way. Section 114 of the Punjab Tenancy ; (Amendment) Act 1952 does not apply to this case. The question of abandonment of occupancy right by the tenant should not have been decided in a summary manner during mutation proceedings but should have been determined by a suit. The petitioner's Mukhtar has stated that the land is being cultivated by a relative of the petitioner with whom she lives in the village.

In view of the above circumstances, I have no option but to quash the order of the Assistant Collector dated 11th September 1952 passed on mutation No. 119 of village Bhalut and also the order of the Collector (Revenue Assistant) dated 25th February 1953 passed in appeal and I order accordingly. The position as it was before mutation No. 119 was sanctioned on 11th September 1952, should be restored.

Announced.

A. H. Petition accepted

Find a Lawyer Near You

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