Find a Lawyer

Ponjnb Land Reforms (Procedure for E)ectment Suits) Rules, 1974-

---. R. 7-Appeal-A substantive right and not a matter of procedure simpliciter-Amendment in law during pendency of action-Not to affect existing rights and matter to be decided according to law existing when action instituted unless amended law applied retrospectively to pending cases-Right of appeal available to petitioners on date of institution of action-Petitioners, held, entitled to disposal of their appeal on merits, in circumstances.--[Appeal (civil)-Interpretation of statutes]. [p. 888]A

Mian Rafiuddin and 6 others v. Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner and 2 others P L D 1971 S C 252 and Craies on Statute Law, 6th Edn., p. 400 ref.

Malik Gul Nawaz Ahmad Khan for Petitioners.

S. M. Rashid for Respondent No. 3.

Date of hearing : 16h October 1978.

The petitioners in this case who are landlords instituted a suit for ejectment of the respondent No. 3 from the suit land. This suit was dismissed by A. C /Collector, Jaranwala vide his order dated 11-8-1976. Thereafter the petitioners filed an appeal against the said order which was accepted by the Additional Commissioner, Revenue, Sargodha Division, Sargodha on 18-11-1977 and the case was remanded to Tehsildar/A. C., Jaranwala for fresh decision in accordance with the provisions of Punjab Land Reforms (Procedure for Ejectment Suits) Rules, 1974. The Tehsildar/A. C. after hearing the parties ordered ejectment of the respondent from the suit land on 31-3-1977. The respondent challenged this order by way of appeal before the A. C./Collector, Jaranwala. This appeal was accepted by the said officer vide his order dated 28-5-1977 and the order of the lower Court regarding ejectment of the respondent was set aside. Thereafter the present petitioners filed an appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Revenue, Sargodha. This appeal was available to the petitioners under paragraph 7 of the Punjab Land Reforms (Procedure for Ejectment Suits) Rules, 1974. The said rules however were subsequently amended by means of a subsequent notification dated 10-61977. By means of this amended notification the right of appeal was no longer available to a landlord although the right continued to vest in an aggrieved tenant.

2. The appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner, Revenue, Sargodha Division, Sargodha vide his order dated 16.8-1977 on the ground that the law as amended did not permit the filing of appeal. It was dismissed as being incompetent.

3. The petitioners have assailed the aforesaid order of Additional Commissioner, Revenue dated 16-8-1977 on the ground that right of appeal vested in them when they instituted the present suit for ejectment against the respondents and that this right cannot be taken away by any subsequent amendment in law by means of notification dated 10-6-1977. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon Mian Rafiuddin and 6 others v. Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner and 2 others (PLD 1971 SC 252) in support of the said proposition. It is further contended by the learned counsel that the appeal is not a matter of procedure but it is a substantive right and cannot be taken away by subsequent amendment in the notification as has been done in the present case.

4. It is well settled that when the law is altered during the pendency of an action, the rights of the parties are decided according to law PS it existed when the action was initiated and not the law that existed at the amended date of order of judgment. This is, however, subject to the exceptions that the new law shall apply, if it is a mere rule of procedure or if it has been applied retrospectively to pending proceedings. This rule, as stated in Craies on Statute Suit Law, 6th Edn., p. 400 is as follows :

"It is a general rule that when the Legislature alters the rights of parties by taking away or conferring any right of action, its enactments, unless in express terms they apply to pending actions, do not affect them. But there is an exception to this rule, namely, where enactments merely affect procedure and do not extend to rights of action."

There are several authorities in support of this proposition of law. It i also established law that appeal is not a matter of procedure but it is substantive right. The law and the notification impugned in the present case nowhere lay down that they are to operate retrospectively. In this view of the matter I hold that the right of appeal as provided by paragraph 7 of the Punjab Land Reforms (Procedure for Ejectment Suits) Rules, 1974 continues to vest in the petitioners and their case had to be decided according to law as it existed when the ejectment suit was filed by them i.e. on 1st of April, 1976 and as admittedly right of appeal was available to the petitioners on the said date, they were entitled to the disposal of their appeal by the Additional Commissioner, Revenue, Sargodha Division, Sargodha on merits.

4. Mr. S. M. Rashid, Advocate for respondent No. 3 has not controverted this factual and legal position.

5. In the circumstances this writ petition is accepted and the impugned order dated 16-8-1977 of Additional Commissioner, Revenue, Sargodha Division, Sargodha (Annexure F) is declared to be illegal and without lawful authority. The case is remitted to the Additional Commissioner, Sargodha who will now decide the appeal of the petitioners on merits in accordance with law.

There will be no order as to costs.

s. Q. Petition allowed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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