Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No: 10637 of 1980, decided on 18th October, 1980.

‑‑Art. 199 read with Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 (MLR 115) Constitutional jurisdiction‑Authority of Additional Commissioner (Revenue) to hear appeal or Board of Revenue to hear revision not disputed‑Such orders, even if erroneous, held, cannot be said to be without lawful authority or lacking jurisdiction‑Interference declined in writ jurisdiction.‑[Writ].

---‑Art. 199 and Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913), S.. 1 m‑Writ jurisdiction‑--Right of pre‑emption an artificially created piratic right‑Exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction in favour of pre emptor, held, not warranted.

Raja Muhammad Sabir for Petitioner.

'' The petitioner sought to pre‑empt a sale of land on the ground that, the land in question was comprised in his tenancy. The Collector decreed his suit but on appeal the Additional Commissioner (Revenue) set aside the decree and the order of the Additional Commissioner was upheld' later by the Board of Revenue in revision. In this writ petition. It is the validity of the orders passed by the Additional Commissioner (Revenue) and the Board of‑Revenue that has been challenged.

It is to be noted in the first place that there is no dispute with regard to the Authority of the Additional Commissioner (Rev.) to hear the appeal or of the Board of Revenue to hear the revision. It is, therefore, clear that even 'if their orders are erroneous, they cannot be said to be without lawful authority or lacking in legal effect.

2. In the second, the first right of pre‑emption was conferred upon, the tenant as from Kharif 1972 by the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972, which was promulgated on the 11th of March, 1972. The sale in question was effected on the 28th of March, 1972. Now Kharif normally means Autumn in the Punjab. Generally the Kharif crop is sown in the month of May and harvested in the months of September, and October, But learned counsel for the petitioner asserts that in Multan .where the disputed land is situate sowing of Kharif crop begins as early as March, and sometimes even February. So he wants to stretch Kharif 1972 to February‑March, 1972 in order that the petitioner may claim superior right of pre‑emption.

3. It is to be noted that the revenue authorities who are supposed to know when Kharif begins and ends have rejected the petitioner's claim. It will, therefore, be improper for this Court to interfere with their decision even if erroneous, in the exercise of the constitutional authority of this Court. Further the right of pre‑emption is an artifi cially created piratic right. Therefore, the exercise of the extraordinary writ jurisdiction in favour of the pre‑emptor is not warranted.

4. Accordingly, I dismiss this writ petition in limine.

K.Y. M. Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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