Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No. 1342 of 1982, decided on 26th June, 1985.

--S. 50--Land Reforms (Procedure for Ejectment Suits) Rules, 1977, R.4--Wrongful ejectment of tenant--Restoration of possession--Application for--Decision made after prescribed period--Legality of--Provision requiring disposal of tenant's application for restoration of possession within prescribed period, being directory in nature because no finality was attached to non-observance thereof and being made for benefit of tenant ejected illegally, could not be availed of by landlord--Landlord, held, could not make any legitimate grievance of delay in disposal of tenant's application for restoration of possession in circumstances.

---Art. 199--Punjab Tenancy Act (XVI of 1887), S.50--Land Reforms (Procedure for Ejectment Suits) Rules, 1977, R.4--Grievances not made before Courts below, held, could not be allowed to be made before High Court in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction.

---Art. 199--Punjab Tenancy Act (XVI of 1887), S. 50--Land Reforms (Procedure for Ejectment Suits) Rules, 1977, R.4--Findings of Court below that tenant was forcibly dispossessed from land in dispute, based on unrebutted evidence on record--Such finding, held, was not open to exception in constitutional jurisdiction of High Court.

Mehar Haq Nawaz for the Petitioner.

Attaur Rahman Khan for Respondent No.2.

Date of hearing:26th June, 1985.

This petition under Article 9 of the Provisional Constitution Order was filed to call in question the order dated 14-11-1982 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Vehari, respondent No.1 directing that the possession of the land in dispute be restored to Ghulam Muhammad respondent.

2. Facts necessary for the disposal of this petition, briefly stated, are that Ghulam Muhammad respondent No.2 who was a tenant of the land in dispute was ejected therefrom illegally and forcibly by the petitioner. Respondent No.2 made an application before the Tehsildar/ Assistant Collector 1st Grade for restoration of the land in dispute. Tehsildar recorded the evidence of both the parties. Under the relevant provisions contained in the Notification No. LIP-III. 393-77-947-LC dated 10-6-1977, the Revenue Officer was required to dispose of the application of respondent No.2. within sixty days which he could not do with the result that the case stood transferred to the Collector by operation of the aforesaid provisions. Assistant Collector Ist Grade submitted the case to the Collector on 28-8-1982. Collector was required to dispose of the matter within thirty days but he decided it vide the impugned order passed on 14-11-1982.

2. Learned counsel appearing in support of this petition has assailed the validity of the impugned order firstly, on the ground that the Collector was required by the aforesaid Notification to dispose of the case within thirty days but he decided it after the prescribed period. It is, no doubt true that the Collector did not decide the matter within thirty days of the receipt of the file but that does not vitiate the impugned order particularly when it is not the case of the petitioner that he suffered any prejudice as the result of non-disposal of the case within the prescribed period. It may be relevantly pointed out that the provision requiring the disposal of the case within thirty days is directory in nature because no penalty is attached to non-observance thereof. Moreover, the provision in question appears to have been made for the benefit of the tenants ejected illegally. Thus the petitioner who is the landlord cannot make any legitimate grievance of the delay in the disposal of the respondents' application for restoration possession.

3. Next submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that after the case was transferred to the Collector, he was bound to start the proceedings afresh but he did not do so nor did he record the evidence of the parties and instead acted on the evidence already recorded by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade. It is also the submission of the learned counsel that even the Tehsildar/Assistant Collector 1st Grade recorded the evidence of the parties on 15-7-1982 and 21-8-1982 i.e. after the expiry of sixty days during which he was required to dispose of the matter. I have seen the original record. Submission of l the learned counsel that the Tehsildar recorded the evidence after l expiry of sixty days appears to be correct. Petitioner, however, cannot be allowed to make any grievance on this count because he raised no objection before the Tehsildar when he recorded the evidence after the expiry of the prescribed period.

As regard the submission that the A.C./Collector should have started the proceedings afresh, it is admitted by the learned counsel that the petitioner made no such request before the Collector. Learned counsel has, however, drawn my attention to an application (available at page 75 of the Original record) which the petitioner moved before the Collector on 26-10-1982. It is stated in this application that the petitioner was not allowed to cross-examine Muhammad Siddiq and Allah Diwaya, the two witnesses produced by the tenant and that the petitioner was also not given sufficient opportunity to produce his evidence. A request was, therefore, made that the petitioner be allowed an opportunity to cross-examine these two witnesses and to produce his own evidence. AC/Collector passed an order dated 30-10-1982 on this application directing that the aforesaid witnesses be produced for cross-examination on 1-11-1982 positively. Learned counsel contends that the witnesses were not produced on 1-11-1982 with the result that the petitioner could not cross-examine them. That may be so but there is nothing on the record to show that the petitioner ever made any grievance before the AC/Collector in this behalf. If the petitioner was really interested in cross-examining those witnesses, he should have repeated his request before AC/Collector for summoning them. Petitioner made no. such request nor did he press his prayer for producing his own evidence which in fact he had produced before the Tehsildar. Thus, the case was rightly decided by the Collector on 14-11-1982 on the evidence available on record.

4. It may also be pointed out and it is quite significant that the learned counsel for the petitioner did not question the finding of the Collector that the tenant /respondent was forcibly dispossessed from the land in dispute. That being so, apart from what has been stated above impugned order which otherwise is supported by the evidence on the record is not open to any exception.

For the foregoing reasons, I find no merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed. There will, however, be no order as to costs in the circumstances of the case.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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