Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No. 496 of 1982, decided on 5th May, 1982.

‑‑S. 10 and, Provisional Constitution Order (P. O. 1 of 1981) Art. 9 State land cancelled for default of payment of rent‑Petitioner invoking writ jurisdiction without first availing remedies by way of appeal and revision‑Impugned order of cancellation of lease and Superdari of crops not without lawful authority‑Such objections can be raised before Collector‑Investigation of disputed facts, held, cannot be taken in writ jurisdiction‑Petition dismissed in circumstances of case.

Khadim Nadeem Malik for Petitioner.

This is a petition under Article 9 of the Provisional Constitution Order, 1981 whereby Allah Ditta and Sultan petitioners want this Court to set aside the order dated 15‑4‑1982 (Annex, 'B' of the learned Assistant Commissioner, Multan and the order dated 24‑11‑1981 (Annex. C') of the Deputy Land Commissioner Multan‑respondent No. 2 and to remand the case to the learned Assistant Commissioner‑Respondent No. I for decision T merits after hearing the parties.

2. The facts leading up to the impugned order dated 15.4‑1984 brief are that on 27‑8‑1981 lot No. 32 measuring 5 acres 1 kanal 13 mar=us situated in village Durrana Langana, District Multan which was a resumed land was leased out to one Haji Qadir Bakhsh for temporary cultivation but he did not pay the lease money. On 22‑9‑1981 he was served with a notice to deposit the rent whereupon he moved an application for the remission of the rent for Kharif or to cancel the lot from his name. The lease was cancelled with the direction that the standing crops be given on supardarl and auctioned, an illicit cultivation file be opened against the occupant and the sale proceeds of the confiscated crops be adjusted to wards the illicit cultivation. Tawan and outstanding rent for the whole year may be recovered from the lessee as arrears of land revenue.

3. As for order dated 24‑11‑1981 of respondent No. 2, Sultan and Allah Ditta petitioners herein had moved the respondent No.. 2 for the allotment of the land resumed from Msa. Sahib Khatoon. The respondent No. 2 passed the following order :‑

The learned counsel contends that the disputed land was under the cultivating possession of the petitioners since Kharif 1968 but respondent No. 1 has ordered proceedings against the occupant for illicit cultivation and have given the crops can supardara and auction without any notice to them.

4. After tearing the learned counsel 1 find that the petitioners without first having approached respondent No. 1 apprising him of their culti vation and their rights, have straightaway moved the constitutional juris diction of this Court. I further find that the remedies by way of appeal and revision, which could be availed of by the. petitioners have not been resorted to. I see nothing wrong with the impugned orders. The crops have been given on supardari and are yet to be auctioned. The petitioners can raise objections and agitate the matter before respondent No. 1, if so advised. The learned counsel has failed to satisfy me that the impug ned orders have been passed without lawful authority. The order of respondent No. 2 shows that the petitioners had not cultivated the land. While sitting in writ petition jurisdiction this Court cannot enter into investigation of the disputed facts.

For what has been stated above there is no force in this petition and the same is dismissed in limine.

M. Y. H. 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.