Find a Lawyer

Revision No. 48 of 1950, decided on 3rd July 1950 from Deputy the decree of Senior Sub‑Judge, Jhang, dated 26th October 1949.

, S. 21A (1) (2) Civil Court not sending copy of decree to Deputy Commissioner‑Deputy Commissioner informed of alienation independently, and applying for revision of decree beyond "two months" of information‑Application time‑barred.

The information referred to in S. 21A(2) of the Punjab Alienation of Land Act; 1900, is not confined to the information derived from the decree or order sent by the Civil Court. The Deputy Commissioner's knowledge need, not be acquired in any particular way and the application for revision must therefore be lodged within two months of the information received from any source by the Deputy Commissioner. Applica tion preferred beyond two months of the information received by the Deputy Commissioner from an independent source was therefore time‑barred.

S. A. Mahmud, Assistant Advocate‑General, for Petitioner.

Dr. Kh. Shuja‑ud‑Din, Advocate, for Respondents.

This is an application by the Deputy Commissioner of Jhang, under Section 21‑A, subsection (2) of the Punjab Alienation of Land Act, in respect of a gift of land made by one Shahra, an agriculturist, in favour of one Khushal, a non‑agriculturist.

The decree was made on the 26th of October 1949, but no copy of it was sent by the Court to the Deputy Commissioner as required by subsection (1). Instead there was an application on the. 21st of November 1949 by the reversioners of the donor to the Collector, praying that action be taken under Section 21-A, and in pursuance thereof the Collector made the present reference on the 23rd of February 1950, more than two months of the date on which he was informed of the decree. This being contrary to subsection (2) of section 21‑A, it is argued for the respondent that the application be thrown out on the ground of limitation.

For the Government reliance was placed on the language of section 21‑A, which required in subsection (1) that where a Civil Court passes a decree or order involving the alienation of his land by a member of an agricultural tribe, it " shall send to the Deputy Commissioner a copy of such decree or order." In subsection (2) it is again stated that " when the Court finds that such decree or order is contrary to any of the provisions of this Act it shall alter it so as to make it consistent with this Act. Such application shall be made within two months of the date upon which the Deputy Commissioner is informed of such decree or order. It is argued that the words "such decree or order" in subsection (2) relate back to the same words used in subsection (1). This, it is true, is one mode of how the Deputy Commissioner gets information, but all that subsection (2) says is that he should apply within two months of the date upon which he is informed, and to introduce here by implication the words "by the Court" would be to violate an elementary rule of construction.

It was held in 200 P. L. R. 1911 that the information referred to in this section is not confined to the information derived from the Court's decree or order. In that case the Deputy Commissioner was informed by the Revenue Assistant when a certain mutation came before him for attestation. In A. I. R. 1930 Lah. 362 it was held that the Deputy Com missioner's knowledge need not be acquired in any particular way. In that case also the information was not derived from any decree or order sent by the Court. For the Crown reliance was placed on A. I. R. 1935 Lah. 274, where the Deputy Commissioner acquired knowledge from an execution order sent by the Court in order that possession may be delivered to the non‑agriculturist, and it was observed that the Deputy Commissioner need not necessarily have received information from commis sioner, what was essentially a matter for the office to dispose of. This ruling is, therefore, inapt.

On the plain language of the section it appears to me that the Deputy Commissioner need not necessarily be informed by the Court. The fact that he may take some time to verify the information by obtaining a copy of the decree or order, and that this might carry him beyond two months, may be a good reason for having the section amended if, indeed, it is necessary to perpetuate tribal differences, but it is not a good reason for restricting the meaning of the section. The reference is, therefore, dismissed as time‑barred.

A. H. Reference 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.