Find a Lawyer

Revision No. 1642 of 1962‑63, decided on 19th November 1963, District Bahawalnagar.

(a) Rehabilitation Re‑Settlement

Scheme, paras. 18 & 19‑Pro visions not applicable to persons not in authorised possession.

S. 77‑Prevailing law applicable for ejectment of tenant after withdrawal of provisions of Martial Law Regulation No. 64.

This order will dispose of the two Revision Petitions Nos. 1642 and 1643 together. The facts relating to them are briefly as follows :‑

The petitioners Suleman and others are allottee of the land, relating to this dispute, under the West Pakistan Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme. The land is situated in village Roda Singh, district Bahawalnagar. The two respondents are tenants on this land. The allottee landlords had notices of ejectment served on the latter under section 45 of the Tenancy Act and the tenants brought suits to contest their liability to ejectment. Both the suits were dismissed, and their ejectment was consequently ordered. The appeals filed against the orders of ejectment were also rejected. The learned Additional Commissioner, however, interfered in revision and set aside the order of ejectment on the ground that as the land was originally evacuee in character provisions contained in Chapter III, Part I of the Rehabilita tion Settlement Scheme were applicable to these ejectment, proceedings. Under paragraph 19 of this Scheme a tenant can only be ejected if certain facts are established and not merely by issue of a notice of ejectment under section 45 of the Tenancy Act. The learned Additional Commissioner accordingly set aside the order of ejectment as he held that proceedings under the Tenancy Act were erroneous. Two second revisions have been filed against this order.

The main argument that has been urged before me is that there is no evidence that the tenants were occupying the land under a valid permit from the Rehabilitation Authority as laid; down in paragraph 18 of the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme and therefore the provisions of the Scheme relating to the ejectment of tenants were not applicable. It is quite true that the tenants have not adduced any evidence that the land in their occupation was held under a valid permit from any Rehabilita tion Authority. Another point which deserves consideration is whether the provisions of Martial Law Regulation No. 64 would not stand in the way of ejectment. It is urged that the transi tional provisions contained in para. 26 of this Regulation which, relate to ejectment of tenants were withdrawn when the Consti tution came into force on 8‑6‑1962. The notices of ejectment were issued later on 2‑11‑1962. Thus it is the ordinary law, namely the Tenancy Act, which governs this case as the Punjab Protection and Restoration of Tenancy Rights Act, 1950, was not extended to Bahawalpur State. These arguments are obviousl3 valid and cogent. Thus the decision arrived at by the Assistant Collector and the Collector is correct and it is not tenable under the law to interfere under the provisions of Chapter III of the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme. I would accordingly accept the two revision petitions, set aside the orders passed by the learned Additional Commissioner and restore that of the Collector.

K. M. A.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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