Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Writ Petition No.1367 of 1987, decided on 21st June, 1987.
---Art.199--Constitutional petition not pressed by parties compromised reached--Petition disposed of with directions for expeditious disposal of the matter by the competent forum where the matter was pending for adjudication.
Ch.Abdur Rashid Gujjar for Petitioner.
Muhammad Saeed Akhtar for Respondent No.4.
Date of hearing: 21st June, 1987.
The Petitioner Nazir Ahmad has moved this Constitutional petition against the respondents praying therein that the impugned orders passed by respondents No.1 to 3 may be declared without lawful authority and of no legal consequence.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the land in question measuring 21 Kanals and 7 Marlas situate at Chak No.541/GB, Tehsil gamundari, District Faisalabad, was allotted to one Siraj Din as alternate land under Ejected Tenants Scheme on 29-9-1980, which land was later on cancelled by the District Collector by his order dated 24-8-1982. The aforesaid land was leased out to the petitioner for five years from Kharif 1983 to Rabi 1988 by the A . C . /Collector on 23-10-1983. This lease was confirmed by the District Collector on 8-5-1984. As a consequence of the lease aforesaid, the petitioner also deposited the lease money amounting to Rs.835 on 24-10-1983. It is submitted that in the meantime one Mst.Ulfat Bibi and others, successors-in-interest of Siraj Din, filed Writ Petition No.1610 of 1984 and status quo order had been passed in that writ petition by this Court on 2-5-1984. Respondent No.4, Fazal Din, got allotment of the disputed land along with other area on 17-5-1984, under the Ejected Tenants Scheme. The appeal of the petitioner against this order was rejected by the Commissioner, Faisalabad, on 1-10-1984. Later on he went in revision petition bearing ROR No.2816/84 before the Board of Revenue. The said revision had been admitted for regular hearing and .the operation of the impugned order was suspended by the learned Member, Board of Revenue vide his order dated 18-12-1984. The petitioner stated that later on he also was impleaded as a party in the aforesaid W . P . No.1610 of 1984.
3. Respondent No.4, Fazal Din, applied for possession and accordingly the Assistant Commissioner/ Collector, Samundari, passed the order handing over the possession of the disputed land to him vide his order dated 6-11-1985. The petitioner's appeal was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner, Faisalabad, on 21-5-1986. The revision petition of the petitioner bearing ROR No.1729/86, was also rejected by the Board of Revenue on 1-1-1987. As stated earlier, the petitioner has challenged the aforesaid order by moving this Constitutional petition.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Member, Board of Revenue has failed to correctly read the evidence produced by him on the record. He has stated that the lease of the petitioner has not been cancelled so far and in law he is still lessee of the land in question. It is submitted by learned counsel for the respondent that the writ in hand is not competent because the same has arisen out of W.P.No.1610 of 1984. It may be observed that in the aforesaid writ petition, Siraj Din is the petitioner. During arguments both the parties have entered into a compromise that the revision petition (ROR No.2816/84) is still pending adjudication before the learned Member, Board of Revenue. Both the parties submit that direction be issued to the learned Member, Board of Revenue for the expeditious disposal of that revision petition.
5. Accordingly, as a consequence of the compromise between the Parties, I direct the learned Member (Colonies) Board of Revenue to decide the aforesaid revision pending before him within a period of one month positively. If he comes to the conclusion that the petitioner is the lawful allottee of the land in question, he will also pass an order restoring the possession of the land in question to the writ-petitioner. With this observation this petition is accordingly disposed of.
K.B.A./N-471L Order accordingly.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer