Find a Lawyer

Civil Revision No. 27 of 1983, decided on 28th August, 1983.

‑‑‑ S. 3 (1) first proviso read with Chapters 11 and IV of Scheme made under Act‑‑Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act (XLVII of 1958), S. 10‑Evacuee property (suit land) remaining undisposed- Such land not offered to sitting tenant for purchase but put to auction‑Legal provisions regarding disposal of property, held. violated‑Order cancelling auction of land and its subsequent trans fer to sitting tenant, upheld.

Muhammad Khan for Petitioner.

The suit land was formerly evacuee property and had been acquired by the Government of Pakistan for transfer to displaced persons. This land had not yet been disposed of under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, when the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975, came into existence and the aforesaid 1958 Act was repealed. Under the provisions of section 3 of the latter Act, this land, being available for disposal immediately before the repeal of the 1958 Act, stood transferred to the Provincial Government for disposal by the Board of Revenue under a Scheme to be prepared by the Provincial Government. The First proviso to subsection (1) of section 3 further provided that the agricultural land occupied by any person continuously for 4 harvests immediately preceding Kharif 1973 was first to be offered for sale to such person. The Provincial Government made a Scheme for the disposal of available agricultural land on 15th June, 1975. The suit land, being available agricultural land, was, however, auctioned on 15th December, 1977 in favour of the petitioner herein, who was neither a tenant of the same nor in his cultivating possession for 4 harvests before Kharif 1973. The respondent No. 4 herein, was actually tenant of the suit land. When the latter came to know of the said auction, he made an application to the Assistant Commissioner, Bannu, offering to purchase the suit land whereupon the auction in favour of the petitioner herein was cancelled vide order, dated 22nd December, 1979 of the respondent No. 3 herein and the suit land was then auctioned in favour of respondent No. 4 herein on 29th December, 1977. The petitioner herein, feeling aggrieved by the order of cancellation of auction in his favour and the one in favour of the respondent No. 4 herein, instituted a suit in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Bannu. The suit was contested by the respondents and after recording the evidence of the parties on the issues framed from their pleadings, the learned Senior Civil Judge dismissed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment, dated 25th May, 1980. The appeal filed by the plaintiff ‑petitioner was also dismissed by the learned District Judge, Bannu, vide judgment, dated 3rd February, 1980. Hence the revision petition.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the auction in favour of the petitioner was cancelled without any notice to him and that he was eligible to retain the suit land. However, these contentions cannot prevail, for the reason that under section 3 of the Repealing Act of 1975 and the Scheme made thereunder in the same year, the suit land had first to be offered to respondent No. 4, who is the sitting tenant whereof and only after his refusal, it could be dealt with in the manner provided in Chapters II and IV of the Scheme. It shall be seen that no offer was made to respondent No. 4 for purchase of the suit land. How ever, the suit land could not be straightaway put to auction because under the provisions of Chapters II and IV of the Scheme, if the sitting tenant refused the suit land, it had then to be offered to any nation building department of Government or to the District Council concerned.' It appears that the respondent No. 3 had failed to adopt the procedure provided in the 1975 Act and the Scheme made thereunder. From al close scrutiny of the circumstances, I have come to the irresistible conclusion that the respondent No. 3 herein, by passing all the legal provisions,] had transferred the property to the plaintiff‑petitioner, simply for the, reason that‑ he was Reader to Tehsildar. It was a clear case of disregard of the legal provisions regarding the disposal of this property. It seems that better sense prevailed upon the respondent No. 3 subsequently and then he set right his own misdoings by transferring the suit land to the sitting tenant, respondent No. 4.

3. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in this revision petition which is dismissed in limine. The C. M. No. 27/83 for issuance of status quo, having become infructuous, is also 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.