Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Writ Petition No. 2802 of 1981, decided on 8th December, 1982.
‑ R 4(5)‑Provisional Constitution Order (1 of 1981), Art. 9 Ejectment‑Tehsildar disposing ejectment petition after prescribed period of 60 days when he became functus officio and proceedings stood automatically transferred to Court 'of Collector ‑ Order of ejectment passed by Tehsildar, held, void and totally without jurisdiction and order passed in appeal as well as revision against order of Tehsildar also falling down‑Application for ejectment treated as still pending before Collector for disposal in accordance with law.
Muhammad Hussain Awan for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents Nos. 1 to 3. .
Nasir Rizvi for Respondent No. 4.
Date of hearing : 8th December, 1982.
The petitioner and respondent No. 4 are half‑brothers. On 30‑10‑1977 respondent No. 4 moved an application before the Tehsildar, who exercised the powers of the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, for the ejectment of the petitioner from some agricultural land on the ground that the petitioner was his tenant and that he bad not paid any batai to him. The Tehsildar allowed the application on 12‑6‑1978 and directed the ejectment of the petitioner. From the order of the Tebsildar the petitioner went in appeal before the Collector but his appeal was dismissed. He then filed a revision petition before the Additional Commissioner but without any success. He has now invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court to impugn the order of ejectment passed against him.
2: In support of his case the petitioner has relied upon rule 4(5) of the Punjab Land Reforms (Procedure for Ejectment Suits) Rules, 1977 which runs as follows:
"If the said Court (that is the Court of the Assistant Collector of the 1st Grade) fails to decide a case within the stipulated period of 60 days, the case shall stand transferred to the Court of Collector there to be tried in the same manner as in the original Court. The case so transferred shall be disposed of within 30 days and the order passed by the Collector shall be final."
The precise contention on behalf of the petitioner is that the order of the Tehsildar was entirely without jurisdiction as on his failure to dispose of the ejectment petition within 60 days the proceedings stood automatically transferred to the Court of the Collector by operation of the above‑mentioned sub‑rule and, therefore, there was no petition pending before the Tehsildar upon which he could make an order of ejectment. I think there is merit in this contention for on the expiry of the prescribed period the Tehsildar became entirely functus officio. Consequently the order of ejectment passed by him was void and totally without jurisdiction. As the basic order was without jurisdiction the order made in appeal by the Collector and the order made by the Additional Commissioner in revision must also fall down. Accordingly, I declare the orders of the Tehsildar, Collector and the Additional Commissioner to be without any legal effect. The application for ejectment filed by respondent No. 4 should be treated as still pending before the Collector and he should dispose of the same in accordance with law. The petitioner shall have his costs in this petition.
M. Y. H. Petition accepted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer