Find a Lawyer

‑‑ Para. 25‑Punjab Land Reforms (Procedure for Ejectment Suit) Rules, 1977, r. 7‑Ejectment of tenant‑Orders passed by Commis sioner in revision‑Final and cannot be upset by Board of Revenue Contention that Board of Revenue can exercise supervisory jurisdic tion, held, also not correct as Commissioner in such cases acts as a persona designata only‑Orders of Board of Revenue setting aside orders of Commissioner and Collector, quashed.

Khuda Bakhsh v. Additional Commissioner P L D 1980 Lah. 353 ref.

This is a petition directed against the order dated 8th February. 1981 of a Member, Board of Revenue, by which he set aside the orders of the Commissioner, as well as the Collector, who had found that the respondents 2 and 3 were liable to be ejected from the land of the petitioners. It is contended by the learned counsel that the Board of Revenue has been assigned no function under the Land Reforms Regulations and consequently, without showing 'any power in law, the impugned order cannot be maintained. He has referred to the Punjab Land Reforms (Procedure for Ejectment Suits) Rules, 1977, to say that it is a complete Code so far as ejectment of tenants is concerned and the order of the Commissioner is final. Further, time made have not been made under the revenue or tenancy laws.

2. These rules had been made not under the Tenancy Laws, but para. 25 of the Land Reforms Regulations, 1972. Rule 7 (4) specifically states that the order passed by the Commissioner in revision shall be final. It also does not say that any order of ejectment must follow decree for the arrears of rent. In this view of the matter, the Board of Revenue cannot upset the orders passed by the Commissioner under these Rules. . The contention of the learned counsel that the Board of Revenue can exercise supervisory jurisdiction over the Commissioner, is also not well‑founded as the Commissioner in such cases acts as a persona designata only.

3. The learned counsel then stated that the finding by the Board of Revenue that ejectment could take place, only after a suit for recovery of rent had been decreed, is also not correct. Reliance is placed on Khuda Bakhsh v. Additional Commissioner (P L D 1980 Lah. 353) where a similar view taken by the Board of Revenue was set aside, to hold that the two are independent and separate proceedings.

In view of the above, the order of the Member, Board of Revenue i1 held to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. It is, therefore, quashed. The parties are, however, left to bear their own costs.

M. Y. H. Order quashed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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