ABDUL SATTAR GORAYA, J. --- By means of this Constitution petitions the order dated 19.2.2009 passed by the learned Senior Member Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore has been brought under impeachment.
2. Facts , in brief are that the petitioner was granted State land on Temporary Cultivation Conditions measuring 12-Acres, 4-Kanals comprising Khasra No. 11/2 to 15/2, 16 to 25 (lot No. 2) situated in the revenue estate of Chak No. 26-D Tehsil Depalpur, District Okara. Petitioner has been cultivating the land and brought the same under plough. Petitioner committed no breach of condition and consequently became eligible to acquire the proprietary rights. During the subsistence of the lease, respondents Nos.4 & 5 illegally got entered their names in the Khasra Girdawari for Kharif 2008 and this arrangement was made in collusion with the Patwari and the revenue field staff. On application made by the petitioner, the Deputy District Officer (Revenue), Depalpur vide order dated 4.2.2009, directed eviction of the afore-noted respondents who occupied the land by dint of force on the basis of 'forged entry in exercise of his power under Sections 32 & 34 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act V of 1912. The order passed by the Sub-Divisional Collector was put into operation and respondents Nos.4 & 5 were evicted. An amount of Rs. 55,125/- was assessed as price of the standing crop which was directed to be paid in the treasury. The whole process completed on 13.2.2009. Sajjad Hussain and Mst. Bifqees Begum, made an appeal directly before the learned Senior Member., Board of Revenue for the reason that after transfer of the Executive District Officer (Revenue), the new incumbent had not taken over the charge. Learned Member, Board of Revenue vide order dated 19.2.2009 admitted the appeal to regular hearing and made-over the same to the Executive District Officer (Revenue), Okara for decision on merit. By way of interim relief it was directed that, "meanwhile, operation of the impugned order shall remain suspended."
3. On the strength of the interim prohibitory order dated 19.2.2009 passed by the learned Senior Member, Board of Revenue, he again directed to put Sajjad Hussain and Mst. Bilqees Begum in possession of the land in dispute, which accordingly was done, and this fact stands projected from Rapt Roznamcha Waqiati No. 444, dated 24.2.2009.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the impugned order dated 19,2.2009 was obtained by respondents Nos.4 and 5 by practicing fraud. It was nowhere disclosed by the respondents before learned respondent No. 1 that pursuant to the impugned order passed by the Deputy District Officer (Revenue), the possession had already been delivered to the petitioner on 13.2.2009. Bitterly argued that in fact, the D.D.O. (R) behaving under the dictative influence and command of the political personage-in-power directed restitution of possession while getting shelter of the injunctive order issued by the Senior Member, Board of Revenue. The D.D.O. (R) in fact, fully knew that on account of earlier order having been implemented in letter and spirit, the injunctive order issued by the Board of Revenue rendered ineffective.
5. Conversely, the learned counsel for the respondents argued that the petitioner is a sub-tenant under the respondents and on 26.12.2008 they had moved an application to the Collector, Sub- Division Depalpur for cancellation of the allotment from the name of the petitioner but he instead initiated the proceedings in terms of Sections 32 & 34 of the Act V of 1912. Further argued that before passing the injunctive order, it was not necessary for the Board of Revenue to afford right of hearing to the petitioner.
6. I have given conscious thought to the arguments made by both the parties. File perused.
7. This is stark reality that the land was allotted to the petitioner under Temporary Cultivation Conditions and he committed no breach. The petitioner was declared eligible to acquire the proprietary rights and under a valid order passed by the Collector, he had deposited the whole amount in the treasury.. It appears that respondents Nos.4 & 5 who were keeping avaricious eyes upon the land of the petitioner, got their names inserted in the Khasra Girdawari with a view to get the land cancelled from the name of the petitioner and they wanted to succeed in his place by getting the land in dispute transferred in their names by proper order. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that the order passed by respondent No. 1 was lawful and it is not suffering from any legal infirmity. The contention has no force. Undoubtedly the . Order passed by the learned Senior Member, Board of Revenue is lawful to the extent he admitted the appeal to regular hearing and made-over the same to the Executive District Officer (Revenue), Okara for further adjudication. As far interim relief the Member, Board of Revenue was mislead by respondents Nos.4 and 5 which led to passing of injunctive order. It was no-where disclosed in the memorandum of appeal that the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Collector had already been put into operation. The injunctive order dated 19.2.2009, for all purposes, rendered ineffective and inoperative. In the given situation, it was bunden duty of the Collector Sub-Division, Depalpur to report the learned Senior Member, Board. Of Revenue that before passing the directed. But instead, under the cover and guise of the said interim order, he put respondents Nos.4 and 5 into possession of the land in dispute, which act on his part was clearly unlawful besides being mala fide. There is outright allegation of learned counsel for the petitioner build-up during the course of arguments that respondents Nos.4 and 5 belong to a Qabza Group' and by no stretch of imagination, the impugned exercise on the part of respondent No. 2 can be termed as bona fide because he was behaving under the extra-institutional influence being exerted upon him and it is for that reason, respondents Nos.4 and 5 have been put into possession. It is not understandable that Mst. Bilqees Begum-respondent No. 5 is a lady and as to how she became a tenant-at-will under the writ petitioner. The whole arrangement appears to have been made with a view to dissipate the land of the petitioner. I am conscious of the fact that, the petitioner.Has deposited the whole price of the land in the treasury as calculated by the Collector and he has acquired unshaken right to be defeated by any one where-after no power is left available with any one to pass a resumption order.
8. It has been brought to my 'notice during the course of the arguments by learned counsel for respondents Nos.4 and 5 that Mst. Bilqees Begum etc. Brought a suit in the nature of Permanent Injunction before the learned Civil Judge, Depalpur to protect their possession during the pendency of the Constitution petition. The interim order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Depalpur dated 19.3.2009 reads:--- "Learned counsel for the plaintiff/petitioner has requested for the grant of ad-interim injunction_ Petition for temporary injunction is supported with an affidavit and copy of Khasa Gardawari, copy of register Gardwari, other documents. By relying upon the document, in the meanwhile defendants are hereby restrained from illegal and forcibly interfering into the suit property till next date of hearing. However, this order shall not effect upon order of competent Court legal proceedings."
Again it appears that the said arrangement made by respondents Nos.4 and 5 is an act of mala fide and the process of law, was being misused. It was nowhere disclosed in the suit that the writ petition on the same subject-matter is pending before this Court and the said interim order has been obtained by keeping the learned Trial Judge in dark. However, the interim order contains a clear direction that this order shall not affect the orders of the competent Court and the legal proceedings. Order VII, Rule 7, C.P.C., in terms makes it obligatory upon the suitor to include whole claim in the plaint or in the alternative leaving general or other relief such way being always open to the Court, the proposed relief can be granted. In the Constitution petition, it has been prayed that any other relief to which the petitioner is found entitled may also be granted. Therefore, by molding relief under Order VII, Rule 7, C.P.C., the relief of restitution of possession is also granted. I am fortified in my view by Secretary to Government of Pakistan (West Pakistan) v. (PLD 1978 Supreme Court 242).
9. For whatever has been stated above, the impugned order dated 19.2.2009 of the learned respondent No. 1 to the extent he suspended the order passed by the Deputy District Officer (Revenue), Depalpur is declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal affect. Resultantly,, the restitution of possession will follow. Before parting with this judgment, I am constrained to observe that the Deputy District Officer (Revenue) exhibited highly objectionable conduct in a manner the injunctive order issued by this Court was misused and under its cover he directed restitution of possession in favour of respondents Nos.4 and 5, it is not understandable. Learned Senior Member, Board of Revenue shall examine the conduct of the D.D.O. (R) and the subordinate officials who made entries in the Khasra Girdawari and by putting false and incorrect reports, obtained the order' of restitution Of possession from the D.D.O. (R). If something is found fishy, the learned Senior Member, Board of Revenue shall proceed in the matter in accordance with law and take such action as he may deem fit. This petition stands disposed of accordingly. Costs will follow the event.