Find a Lawyer

Revisions Nos. 8 to 13 of 1962‑63, decided on 25th February 1964, District Bahawalnagar.

Punjab Tenancy Act (XVI of 1887),

S. 45‑Ejectment‑Tenant in possession of land from pre partition period but not holding valid permit under para. 18, Part I, Chapter III, West Pakistan Rehabili tation Settlement Scheme Held, liable to ejectment‑West Pakistan Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme, Part 1, Chapter III, Paras. 17, 18 & 19.

Sulaiman v. Khushi Muhammad P L D 1964 W. P. (Rev.) 63 and Haji Abdul Karim v. The Chief Settlement Commissioner and others P L D 1961 Lah. 394 ref.

This order will dispose of six Revision Petitions Nos. 8 to 13 of 1962‑63. These are all connected and the facts briefly are as follows :‑

The petitioners are permanent allottee of land which is situated in Chak Chopa, district Bahawalnagar. They had notices of ejectment issued against the tenants‑respondents under section 45 of the Tenancy Act in November 1962. At that time the transitional provisions contained in paragraph 26 of Martial Law Regulation No. 64 (now West Pakistan Land Reforms Regulation, mentioned in Article No. 225 of the Constitution Act) were no longer in force. The tenants did not bring suits to contest their liability to ejectment and the Assistant Collector accordingly order ed their ejectment under subsection (5) of section 45 after the expiry of two months from the date of the service of notices. The tenants filed appeals to the Collector who held that the cases were governed by the provisions of the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme, paragraph 19, Chapter III, Part I, which lays down that ejectment can only take place if certain conditions were fulfilled. No evidence was produced by the landlord to the effect that any of these conditions laid down was satisfied and the appeals were accepted. Revision filed by the landlord allottees were also dis missed by the learned Additional Commissioner. Second revisions have now been preferred.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on my deci sion in Revision No. 1642 of 1962‑63 Suleman etc. v. Khushi Muhammad (P L D 1964 (W. P.) Rev. 63). I had held in that case that paragraph 19 of the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme would apply only if a tenant is in possession of the land under a valid permit as mentioned in the preceding paragraph 18. The words used in paragraph 19 leave no doubt on this point. In the cases under consideration there is no evidence that valid permits had been issued by the Rehabilitation Commissioner to the respondent‑tenants who age pre partition tenants which find a mention in paragraph 17 of the Scheme. It is thus quite obvious that the provisions of the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme are not applicable to these cases.

The second point that has been urged before me is that the land has now been acquired by the Central Government free of all encumbrances including the rights of the tenants if they had any. Reliance in this behalf is placed on Haji Abdul Karim v. The Chief Settlement Commissioner and others (P L D 1961 Lah. 394). Shabbir Ahmad, J. observed in that case that encumbrances mentioned in sub section (3) of section 3 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation; Act, as subsequently amended would include, the rights of tenants also, so that as soon as a notification under subsection (2) of section 3 of this Act is published the property vests in the Central Government free of all kinds of rights that any body had in it before the publication of the notification. Thus after the publication of the notification, the tenants are no longer protected by the provisions contained in the Rehabilitation Settle ment Scheme. It is urged to the contrary that this act excepts the provisions of the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme and a tenant can only be ejected in accordance with its provisions. The respon dents were tenants under Hindu evacuee. They had continued in possession of the land. They are therefore not trespassers but at the same time they do not hold the land under a valid permit mentioned in paragraph of the Scheme. In these circumstances then seem liable to ejectment under the Tenancy Act and this view finds support in some decisions of the Board of Revenue. Thus the orders passed by the Collector and the learned Additional Com missioner are erroneous. These are accordingly set aside and the, orders passed by the Assistant Collector directing ejectment of the tenants are upheld.

S. Q.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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