Find a Lawyer

‑‑‑‑ R. 4 (4) ‑ Disposal of plaint after sixty days ‑ Effect of ‑Assistant Collector passing order of ejectment of tenant after statutory period of 60 days ‑ Collector dismissing appeal against order‑Additional Commissioner in revision not deciding case on merits but remanding it to be decided afresh‑Held, observation of Additional Commissioner that Assistant Commissioner's order without jurisdiction cannot be supported and revision petition before him to be deemed pending.

Writ Petition No. 12010 of 1980 and 1981 S C M R 1171 ref.

Jariullah Khan for Petitioners.

Ch. Muzamal Khan for Respondents..

Date of hearing : 5th October, 1982.

The petitioners moved an application for ejectment of Miraj Din respondent No. 2 which was allowed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade on 14th January, 1981. Miraj Din went in appeal before the Collector but the appeal was dismissed on 17th May, 1981. He has, however, been successful in revision petition before the Additional Commissioner who on 21st July, 1981 has set aside the order of the Assistant Collector on the ‑ground that he decided the case after the statutory period of 60 days. The Additional Commissioner remanded the case to the Collector to decide the case afresh.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners has produced a copy of the judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 12010 of 1980 in support of his contention that even if the order of the Assistant Collector is passed after the expiry of 60 days the order does not become a nullity and that the prejudice, if any, caused on account of this delay will be deemed to have been remedied as the question was agitated to appeal before the Collector who otherwise would have heard the case on transfer from the Court of the Assistant Collector on the expiry of sixty days. The order of the High Court in the abovementioned writ petition was challenged in the Supreme Court and as reported in 1981 S C; M R 1171: Leave was refused by the Supreme Court in that case.

3. I have no reason to disagree with the opinion expressed in Writ Petition No. 12010 of 1980. Therefore, the observation of the Additional Commissioner in his order dated 21st June, 1951 that the order of the Assistant Collector was without jurisdiction cannot be supported. It is, B however, pertinent to notice that the Additional Commissioner while remanding the case to the Collector bad declined to decide the case on merits. The revision petition before the Additional Commissioner will therefore be deemed to be still pending. The case is remanded to the Additional; Commissioner again for decision on merits.

With these observations the writ petition is disposed of.

K.M. A. Petition 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.