Find a Lawyer

ROR (LR) No.3017 of 1985, decided on 25th August, 1985.

---Paras. 25 & 30--West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1997;, S.164--Revision--Registration of case against petitioner directed by Collector under para 30 of Land Reforms Regulation, 1972--Validity of--Registration of criminal case with Police having not been contemplated, proceedings taken against petitioner, held, were not valid--While proceedings under para 30 of Land Reforms regulation, 1972 Authorities, held, were required to adopt proper procedure, providing opportunity of being heard to person to be proceeded against or to proceed under ordinary criminal law--Procedure adopted for registration of case against petitioner being invalid, order for registration of case was set aside by Board of Revenue--Authorities, however, could proceed against petitioner by adopting proper procedure or having recourse to ordinary criminal law.

Malik Talib Hussain for Petitioners.

This is a 2nd revision petition against the order of Land Commissioner Bahawalpur dated 10-8-1984 whereby he rejected the revision of the petitioners against the order of AC/Collector Sadiqabad dated 22-6-1984 vide which he directed the registration of a case under pars. 30 of MLR 115 of 1972 against the petitioner.

2. The facts of the case are that Ghulam Mustafa on 10-6-1984 complained against the petitioner before the Tehsildar Sadiqabad for his illegal and forcible dispossession from the land. The enquiry was entrusted to the Field Kanungo who reported that Ghulam Mustafa had purchased Rect. No. 39/2 Kills, No.10 measuring 8 Kanals situated in Mauza Kasmani and was cultivating the same. He had sworn Jawar in 4 Kanals of land. He had also cultivated Rect. No.39/9 Kills, No.6 as tenant under Khawaja Naseer-ud-Din Mahmood and had sown d Kanals sugarcane in it. These crops were damaged by applying tractor of Rhawaja Naseerud Din Mahmood. The Tehsildar after examining the report and record directed the Kanungo to restore the tenancy of Ghulam Mustafa and others. The field Kanungo on 17-6-1984 reporteu that Khawaja Naseerud Din Mahmood and others had resisted the restoration proceedings and there was likelihood of breach of peace and Police help was needed. The Tehsildar on 26-6-1984 referred the case to the Assistant Commissioner/ Collector Sadiqabad, vho directed the SHO Ahmad Pur Lamma to register a case under para 30 of MLR 115. Kh. Naseerud Din Mahmood also filed a suit for declaration in the Civil Court under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. against the order dated 14-6-1984 of the Tehsildar passed for the restoration; of the tenancy. The suit was dismissed by the Senior Civil Judge on 21-6-1984. The appeal filed by Kh. Naseerud Din Mahmood was dismissed with cost by the District Judge Rahimyar Khan on 31-7-1984. The AC/Collector Sadiqabad in view of decision of District Judge Rahimyar Khan again directed the SHO concerned on 13-3-1985 to register a case under para 30 of M L R 115 in violation of the provisions of MLR against the petitioners. The petitioners filed revision before the Land Commissioner Bahawalpur who rejected the same. Hence this 2nd revision petition.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners at length and gone through the grounds of revision. He contended that the petitioners purchased 108-K-3-M of the land vide mutation No.329 dated 17-4-1983 from M/s Ghulam Shabbir etc., in a joint holdings for a considerate of Rs.4,25,000. The vendors put the petitioners in possession of Rect. No. 37/2 Killa No. 16 (Bay) 24 (bay) 25 Rect. No.37/10 Kills. No.20 (Alif) 21, Rect. No. 38/9 Kills. Nos. 5 to 7, 14 to 16, Rect. No.38 Killa Nos. 8, 10, 11, 20 and 21, situated in Mauza Kasmani. He argued that Chulam Mustafa cultivated some land out of the abovementioned land as a lessee. The lease period expired in Rabi 1983 and he after the expiry of lease period had handed over the possession to Ghulam Shabbir etc. before the land was actually sold to the petitioners. He contended that Ghulam Mustafa applied to the Tehsildar Sadiqabad that he was forcibly ejected by the petitioners from Rect. No.38/13 Killa No.10(8) which he was cultivating as owner. The Tehsildar Sadiqabad passed order in favour of Ghulam Mustafa for putting him in possession of the land. He contended that Nazir Ahmad, Bashir Ahmad, respondents, the sons of Ghulam Mustafa, submitted another application that they were forcibly ejected by the petitioner from Rect. No.38/13 Rect. No.10 and Rect. No.38/9 Killa No.6 of which they were tenants. The Tehsildar reported to the AC/Collector for the registration of the case against the petitioners. He contended when it came to the notice- of the petitioners that respondents Nos.3 and 4 have got their names entered in the Khasra Girdawari as tenants, he applied to the DLC for the correction of the entries of Khasra Girdawari. The DLC called for a report from the Revenue Officer who made report that respondents Nos.3 and 4 were never tenants. The matter is still under consideration of the Revenue Authorities. He argued that the Land Commissioner while deciding the appeal of the petitioners misapplied Rule 7(2) of the Punjab Land Reforms Rules 1977. He argued that the A LC directed the Local Police to register a case against the petitioners under Paragraph 30 of MLR 115 although the offences mentioned in this para are cognizable by a court on a complaint in writing made by order of or under authority from the Commissioner as required in para 31 of the Regulation. He argued that the ALC was not competent to pass such an order directly to the local police to register a case against the petitioners under para 30 of the Regulation. He urged that the order of ALC was without jurisdiction. He argued that the appellate Court failed to take notice of the illegal order passed by the ALC. He argued hat the Punjab Land Commissioner has already issued Notification by' which the dispossessed person claiming as tenant can apply to the A C 1st grade who on making proper enquiry and after giving an opportunity to the landlord of being heard will pass order and such order is amenable to the provisions of sections 80, 81, 82, 83 and 84 regarding appeal, revision and review before the competent Authorities. He argued that before passing the order no opportunity of being heard was provided to the petitioners by the Tehsildar and Assistant Commissioner. He urged that the impugned order be set aside.

4. I have considered the arguments and perused the record of the case. According to Notification No.1-552-75/2876-LC(II) dated 25-6-1975 the Sub-Assistant Land Commissioner (Tehsildar) of tehsil concerned was authorised to file a complaint in writing against a person who contravenes any of the provisions of paragraph 25 of the MLR 115. The powers were, however, to be exercised by the Sub-Assistant Land Commissioner with the prior approval of Deputy Land Commissioner concerned to avoid any victimization etc. These complaints could be heard only by section 30 Magistrate. There is no where provided to register a case with the police. It is observed that the proceeding taken against the petitioner for registration of a case with the police under section 30 of MLR 115 was against the provision of Law. The action against the police under the ordinary A Criminal Law could be taken by registration of a case without reference to Para 30 of MLR 115. If the authorities want to proceed under Para 30 of MLR 115, proper procedure be adopted and opportunity be promoted to the petitioners of being heard or to proceed under the ordinary Criminal Law. The revision petition is thus disposed of.

A. A./226/R Order accordingly.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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