Find a Lawyer

Civil Revision No. 267 of 1983, decided on 14th December 1983.

‑Paras. 25 & 26‑‑N.‑W. F. P. Land Reforms (Ejectment of Tenants to provide for Building) Rules, 1978, r. 9‑Ejectment application ‑Jurisdiction‑Record not showing that petitioner wanted to produce evidence documentary or oral which Deputy Commissioner refused to receive‑Order of Deputy Commissioner passed on ejectment application in exercise of his special jurisdiction, held, could not be termed to be without jurisdiction.‑[Jurisdiction].

‑‑S. 9‑Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 [M. L. R. 115], paras. 25 & 26‑N: W. F. P. Land Reforms (Ejectment of Tenants to provide for Building) Rules, 1978, r. 9‑Civil Courts, jurisdiction of.‑Plenary jurisdiction to decide civil rights, held, vested in Civil Courts but where certain rights and obligations were created under special Act as distinct from rights in common law and special authority is also created for deciding such rights and obligations it was that authority ‑alone which had jurisdiction to adjudicate‑Act when in unequivocal terms bars jurisdiction of civil Courts for deciding disputes arising under such statute and if under cloak of such powers, authority so created travels beyond its jurisdiction or usurps powers of civil Courts, which are principal Courts, such an order, held further, could be struck down as without jurisdiction.‑[Jurisdiction].

‑‑ S. 115‑Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 [M. L. R. 1.151, paras. 25 & 26 & N.‑W. F. P. Land Reforms (Ejectment of Tenants to provide for Building) Rules, 1978, r.9‑Revision‑If forms of appeal and revision provided under a special statute to correct legal as well as factual mistake not availed, civil Courts, under plenary jurisdiction, held, not competent to come to aid of a litigant.

---‑S. 115 ‑Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 [M. L. R. I 15], paras. 25 & 26 and N.‑W. F. P. Land Reforms (Ejectment of Tenants to provide for Building) Rules, 1978. r. 9‑Revision‑Order passed by Deputy Commissioner on ejectment application under special jurisdiction vested in him by law‑Civil Courts, held, have no jurisdiction in matter.‑[Jurisdiction].

Haji Mohammad Zahir Shah for Petitioners.

This revision petition has been instituted in. the following circum stances.

Said Khan and other plaintiff‑petitioners brought a declaratory suit challenging the order, dated 27th January, 1980 of Deputy Commissioner, Kohat passed in the ejectment application No. 16/4 instituted under N.‑W. F. P. Land Reforms (Ejectment of Tenants to provide for Building) Rules, 1978, by Mst. Fozia Parveen and her sister Mst. Yasmeen Rana through their father, the general attorney, Col. (Rtd.) Syed Sultan Ali Shah with regard to a piece of land fully detailed in the hearing of the plaint. It was alleged that the impugned ejectment order of the Deputy Commis sioner, Kohat, passed in an unlawful exercise of jurisdiction was collusive and fraudulent. In the body of the plaint it has been mentioned that the Deputy Commissioner did not implead the legal representatives of Aya Khan and Zakarya Khan who were necessary parties and that the plaintiff -petitioners were not given an opportunity to produce evidence and the whole proceedings were taken ex pare and were collusive and fraudulent. The decree for perpetual injunction was also sought. The suit was contested by the defendant‑respondents. The learned trial Judge framed the following preliminary issues : ‑‑

(1) Whether this court has got jurisdiction

(2) Relief.

After hearing the arguments of the parties the trial Court arrived at the finding that he had no jurisdiction in the matter. Accordingly the suit' was dismissed on 23rd February, 1983. The plaintiff‑petitioners herein chal lenged the decision by filing an appeal which too was dismissed by District Judge, Kohat vide his judgment, dated 7th June, 1933. Conse quently the present revision petition has been moved by the plaintiff petitioners. The .record of the lower court as well as that of the Deputy Commissioner, Kohat was summoned and perused with the assis tance of the learned counsel for the petitioners. The learned coun sel for the petitioners submitted that although jurisdiction of the civil Court in the matter of ejectment is explicitly barred under paragraph 26 of Martial Law Regulation No. 15 but as the Deputy Commissioner had not followed in letter and spirit rule 9 of the Rules ibid on the subject, the Civil Court under its general jurisdiction is competent to strike down the impugned order. Elaborating further it was urged that the petitioners were not afforded an opportunity to produce evidence which violated the provisions of rule 9 ibid. Sub‑rule (I) of rule 9 is as follows : ‑

"After hearing the parties, recording the statements of their witnesses and examining such other documentary evidence as may be adduced by them, the Deputy Commissioner shall decide whether the land in question or any part thereof is required by the landlord for‑the bona fide purpose of constructing a building thereon and the tenant should be ejected therefrom."

The file of the Deputy Commissioner which was requisitioned does not indicate that the petitioners wanted to produce evidence, documentary or oral which the Deputy Commissioner refused to receive. From the order sheets it is evident that the learned counsel for the petitioners argued the matter whereafter the impugned order was passed. No indication is avail able from the file that the petitioners were not allowed to produce evidence. Such being the case, hardly can the order of the Deputy Commissioner passed in special jurisdiction under the rules, be termed to be without jurisdiction. It cannot be denied that the plenary jurisdiction to decide civil rights vests in the civil Courts under section 9 of Civil Procedure Code. But where certain rights and obligations are created under a special Act, as distinct from rights in common law and special authority is also created for deciding such rights and obligations, it is that authority alone which has the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon them. It is moreso when such an Act, in unequivocal terms, bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts for deciding the disputes arising ruder such Statute. Of course, if under the cloak of such powers, the authority so created, travels beyond its jurisdic tion or usurps the powers of civil Courts, which are the principal Courts, such an order can be struck down as without jurisdiction. It has not been shown that the Deputy Commissioner has travelled beyond his jurisdiction in deciding the ejectment application. Another feature of the case. is that the order of the Deputy Commissioner was challenged by filing an appeal in the Court of Commissioner, Peshawar Division, Peshawar, and the appeal was dismissed. This fact was not disclosed in the plaint as a result the order of the appellate authority was not challenged. The petitioners also had another forum that of Board of Revenue before whom the matter could have been agitated but that too was not availed. Where forums of appeal and revision are provided under a special statute to correct the legal a well as factual mistakes and these are not availed, civil Courts under plenary jurisdiction are not competent to come to the aid of a litigant who has not exhausted the remedies available under the special statute. Another hurdle which the ingenuity of the learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to surmount is that the impugned order of Deputy Commissioner, Kohat stood merged in the order of the Commissioner passed on appeal filed by the petitioners which order of the appellate authority was not challenged in the suit. Rather it was not disclosed in the plaint that such an appeal was lodged and ultimately dismissed.

2. On the view of the matter that I take, the two Courts below have correctly arrived at the decision that they bad no jurisdiction in the matter. Accordingly this revision petition alongwith C. M. No. 347/83 for temporary injunction is 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.