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. 554 of 1982, decided on 18th April, 1983.
‑‑S. 10‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑Ejected Tenant Scheme‑‑Respondent holding land under Ejected Tenant Scheme‑ Petitioner who entered into possession of land in dispute through respondent as his tenant, assailing the very title of their landlord and challenging order of Member, Board of Revenue to the effect that respondent was entitled to enforcement of proprietary rights‑‑Petitioner merely a tenant under respondent having no locus standi in the matter‑ Even otherwise petition suffering from excessive laches and order impugned becoming final‑‑Petition dismissed in circumstances.
Mian Abdul Latif for Petitioner.
Raja Muhammad Younis for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2.
Date of hearing: 22nd September, 1982
The petitioner admittedly to have entered into possession of the land in dispute through respondents Nos.l and 2 had filed this writ petition to assail the orders of the Member, Board of Revenue, refusing the application of the petitioner for grant of proprietary rights and allowing that of respondents Nos.l and 2 for grant of the same.
2. The brief facts are that land measuring 14 Acres was allotted to respondents Nos.l and 2 under Ejected Tenants Scheme in the year 1963. It is alleged that this grant was cancelled on 11‑5‑1973 and resumed on account of failure of respondents Nos.l and 2 to pay the arrears of rent. On appeal being filed, the Additional Commissioner gave them a month's time to clear the arrears. Respondents Nos.l and 2 failed to comply with the order to clear the arrears. They moved the Additional Commissioner for extension of time which was refused. They then preferred a revision petition before the Member, Board of Revenue who accepted the same vide his order, dated 14‑9‑1974. Dues were paid on 27‑9‑1974.
3. In the year 1979, respondents Nos.l and 2 it is pleaded inducted the petitioner as a tenant. On happening of this event the petitioner, on 17‑1‑1980, applied for allotment of this land to him. However, on 11‑5‑1980 respondents Nos.l and 2 applied for the grant of proprietary rights. The Deputy Commissioner permitted them to clear the arrears of rent which they did. It was the petitioner who appealed against this order which was dismissed by an Additional Commissioner on 22‑6‑1980. A further revision in the Board of Revenue also failed on 21‑8‑1980. The Member, Board of Revenue, held, that failure of respondents Nos.l and 2 to cultivate the land themselves did not disqualify them from enquiring proprietary rights.
4. Thereafter, the Collector is said to have cancelled the respondents' allotment on 30‑8‑1980. This time respondents Nos.l and 2 had to file an appeal before the Additional Commissioner who set aside the Collector's order on 16‑12‑1981 and remanded the case with the direction that the order of Member, Board of Revenue should be ' acted upon. This had the effect of nullifying the order of the D.C./ Collector, dated 30‑8‑1980.
5. The petitioner has now come up by way of this writ petition to challenge the order of the Member, Board of Revenue, dated 21‑8‑1980.
6. I am afraid, this cannot be permitted to be done. The impugned order having been passed in the year 1980, the belated attack in the year 1982 by way of this writ petition suffers from excessive laches. Moreover, this order was not assailed directly any further by the petitioner if he felt aggrieved by it. It was thus allowed to become final.
7. Moreover, the petitioner admittedly having entered into possession under respondents Nos.l and 2 in the year 1979 cannot be heard to assail the very title of his landlords. This is another fatal ground.
8. The further attack of the petitioner as regards the order of the Additional Commissioner, dated 16‑12‑1981 also cannot succeed for the reason that all that the Additional Commissioner has done by his impugned order, dated 16‑12‑1981 is to observe that the earlier order of the Member, Board of Revenue, dated 21‑8‑1980 be acted upon. Therefore, so long as the order of the Member, Board of Revenue stands, the petitioner cannot successfully assail the subsequent order of the Additional Commissioner, dated 16‑12‑1981.
9. I also feel that the Board of Revenue exercises all prevailing jurisdiction with respect to such allotments and the learned Member, Board of Revenue found the respondents entitled to the conferment of proprietary rights, the petitioner who is a mere tenant of the said respondents would have no locus standi in the matter.
10. The writ petition, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed. There will however be no order as to costs.
M . Y . H . /M‑10/ L Petition dismissed
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer