Find a Lawyer

Civil Miscellaneous No. 3917-C/75 and 1974-C/76 in F. A. O. No. 154 of 1975, decided on 7th June, 1976.

----------O. XXXIX, rr. 1,2&4-A-Stay order-Grant of, against coercive recovery-Recovery not a public revenue or an undertaking owned or controlled by Provincial Government - No statutory obligation on Government to recover such dues-Stay not hit by provisions of r. 4-A of O. XXXIX, C. P: C.-Government determined to realise amounts as arrears of land revenue and coercive recovery likely to cause irrepar able loss to appellant-Stay confirmed in circumstances.

Saleem Baig for Appellants.

Mian Muhammad Shafi for Respondents.

The Appellants had prayed for a stay that coercive recovery may not be made against them during the pebdency of the appeal. Respondents Nos. 2 to 5 had also made counter-application for vacation of the stay on the ground that in the matter of recovery of money there would be no substantial loss to the Appellants and stay cannot be granted. During the arguments the question arose whether the sum being recovered against the Appellants was a public revenue and under the provision of Order XXXIX, rule 4-A, C. P. C. the life of such an order was only 60 days.

2. The learned counsel for the Appellant has contended that this is a sum being realised as compensation to be paid to the outgoing tenants for the improvements .made by them in the land belonging to the Government. According to him the revenue as it means is the income of the State as a result of taxes, dues and fees under various Acts. These are such incomes which come 'to the revenue of the State but the compensation as in this case is meant for the benefit of outgoing tenants. This amount although being realised as arrears of land revenue is not revenue in the strict sense and same being recovered as arrears of land revenue would not make it a land revenue because its mode of realisation is as arrears of land revenue.

3. The background of the case is that the land was allotted to respon dents Nos. 2 to 5 by the Collector for twenty years in the first instance and then extended for another ten years, and during that period. they had raised certain constructions. After the termination of this lease, the assessed compensation for the improvement 'of the land was required to. be recovered for the appellants as arrears of land revenue for the reason that the land was allotted to them in 1970-71 for ten years but by the coming into force of Martial Law Regulation No. 115, the type of that tenancy came to an end and under para. 15 the appellants were allowed to continue on the land on the condition that they would pay rent at the rate of ten times the land revenue. The main contention of the appellants in the appeal is that they are not. liable to pay the compensation to the outgoing tenants because their lease for ten years has been cancelled. It is a question which would be gone into when the main appeal is taken up. However, it appears that the present recovery is not a public 'revenue about which the life of the temporary injunction would be reduced to sixty days.

4. The learned counsel for the respondents has drawn my attention to the explanations to Rule 4-A wherein it is laid down that public revenue includes the dues of any bank owned by the Federal Government or of any Corporation or undertaking owned or controlled by the Federal Government or a Provincial Government. The learned counsel contends that the recovery' of this amount is an undertaking controlled by the Provincial Government. I do not think that it is an undertaking owned or controlled by the Provincial Government. There is no statute wherein it is obligatory on a Government to recover these dues on account of and for the benefit of the private persons. I In such state of affairs, the stay order granted in this case is not covered by the provisions of Rule 4-A of Order XXXIX, C. P. C.

5. It is next contended that it is a recovery of money where there is no possibility of an irreparable loss. I would have given a considerate thought to this argument but -the matter here is different. The Government is determined to realize the amounts as arrears of land revenue and coercive recovery would cause an irreparable loss to the appellants. For this reason C the stay order needs confirmation. It shall continue till the disposal of the appeal. C. M. No. 3917-C/75 and C. M. No. 1974-C/76 stand disposed of.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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