' This is a Constitutional Petition by Riaz Ahmad seeking to challenge the orders of Member, Board of Revenue, Lahore dated 7-11-1984 in R.O.R.Nos. 2267/94, 2268/84 and 2269/84 alongwith the orders, dated 17-3-1984 passed by Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Rawalpindi Division, Rawalpindi in Appeals Nos. 1/84, 2/84 and 3/84. The orders of learned Collector, dated 26-12-1983 in three separate ejectment suits have also been challenged in this petition.
2. The facts necessary for the disposal of this petition are that Brig: (R-td.) Muhammad Afzal Khan brought an ejectment suit regarding Khasra No.2778 measuring 19 Kanals; Mst. Durr-e-Shahwar and Mst. Abida Sarfraz brought another suit for ejectment from land bearing Khasra Nos. 2778/3 and 2795/1 measuring 18 Kanals 15 Marlas whereas Major-General (Rtd.) Muhammad Anwr Khan brought the third suit for ejectment from land bearing Khasra No.2778 measuring 19 Kanals. All these three suits were filed against Riaz Ahmad (petitioner herein) on the plea that the said Riaz Ahmad was tenant-at-will under them; that he was not cultivating the suit land; and that he failed to pay the produce rent (Batai) to them. All these suits were resisted by Riaz Ahmad present petitioner. It was pleaded by him that he was in possession of the suit land in his own right continuously for a period of over 12 years and that he was not the tenant-at-will under the plaintiffs in three suits. The learned Collectors vide orders, dated 26-12-1983 accepted the suits and directed the ejectment of Riaz Ahmad. It was held by him that Riaz Ahmad was a tenant-at-will under the respective plaintiffs and had failed to pay the Batai to them. The contentions of Riaz Ahmad in the written statements were rejected. Riaz Ahmad, defendant in the suits, went up in appeal before the learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Rawalpindi Division, Rawalpindi. These appeals were dismissed on 17-7-1984. He went up to the Board of Revenue by filing three separate revision petitions which were dismissed on 7-11-1984 by one judgment. The petitioner has assailed the above orders through this petition.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents Nos.1 to 4 who had filed three separate suits for ejectment of Riaz Ahmad petitioner, had in their Application No.21/81, dated 12-9-1981 (Annexure 'S') admitted that Riaz Ahmad was not their tenant and that he was in adverse possession of the land bearing Khasra Nos. 2778 and 2795. In this application which was filed by respondents Nos.1 to 4 through their attorney Haroon Sarfraz, it was prayed that the entries in the revenue record showing Riaz Ahmad as a tenant should be corrected. It was, therefore, argued by the learned counsel that the respondents could not now base their claim in the Revenue Courts on the allegation that Riaz Ahmad was their tenant. It was next contended by the learned counsel that a civil suit between the parties to determine the question of adverse possession was already pending in a Civil Court and as such, the Revenue Courts should not have decided the question of title in the ejectment proceedings. In this behalf, reliance was placed on a judgment Rehmat Ullah v. Ali Muhammad and another 1983 SCMR 1064. It was next contended by the learned counsel that the mere fact that the name of Riaz Ahmad petitioner is recorded as a tenant-at-will in the revenue record would not mean that he was a tenant under respondents Nos.1 to 4 specially when there was no agreement between the parties creating tenancy. It was further contended in this behalf that there was no entry in Roznamcha of Patwari to show that Riaz Ahmad entered in possession of this land as tenant under respondents Nos.1 to 4. It was argued by the learned counsel that the general practice of the revenue staff is that every person in possession of a land, not recorded, as owner in the ownership column, in recorded as tenant-at-will. In support of this, he placed reliance on Mst. Bhagh Bhari v. Mst. Bhagan PLD 1954 Lah. 365 and Sohawa Singh v.
Kesar Singh and others AIR 1932 Lah.
586.
4. I have considered the above arguments of the learned counsel and have gone through the record of this case. I have also gone through the judgments cited by the learned counsel at the Bar.
5. A perusal of Application No.21/81, dated 12-9-1981 Annexure 'S' would indicate that Major-General Muhammad Anwar Khan etc. had filed an application for correction of the entries in revenue record pertaining to Khasra Nos.2778 and 2795 alleging that Riaz Ahmad was not their tenant. It is conceded by the learned counsel for the petitioner that this application was dismissed on 25-11- 1981. This means that the contention of Major-General Muhammad Anwar Khan etc. was not accepted. Thereafter, it appears that Muhammad Anwar Khan etc. accepted the entries of the revenue record showing Riaz Ahmad present petitioner as their tenant. They, therefore, filed an application for recovery of produce rent of the land in question regarding Rabi 1981 crop. This suit for produce rent was decreed in favour of Major-General Muhammad Anwar Khan etc. against Riaz Ahmad present petitioner. Against this decree of produce rent, Riaz Ahmad went up in appeal before the Collector which was dismissed. He then filed a revision petition in the Court of Additional Commissioner (Revenue) Rawalpindi Division, Rawalpindi which also was dismissed. This means that in an earlier litigation, Riaz Ahmad was held to be a tenant under Major-General Muhammad Anwar etc. All these facts were admitted by Riaz Ahmad in his statement during the impugned proceedings on 10-10-1983 while appearing as his own witness. A copy of this statement in Annexure 'P' on the file of this petition. It was admitted by learned counsel that the decree pertaining to produce rent against Riaz Ahmad petitioner still holds the field. In this view of the matter, I am of the view that even if the earlier stand in application No.21/81 Annexure 'S' of the respondents Nos.1 to 4 was contrary to their present stand, then also it will have no effect because firstly, the said application was dismissed and secondly, there was a decree of produce rent in their favour against Raiz Ahmad present petitioner. The said decree of produce rent was passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction and as admitted by the learned counsel, it still holds the field. As such, even if there was no specific written agreement creating tenancy between the parties, it will have no effect on the merits on the poceedings impugned in this petition.
6. It is correct that a civil suit between the parties is still pending to determine the question about adverse possession claimed by Riaz Ahmad petitioner on the suit land against Major-General Muhammad Anwar Khan etc. I have gone through the judgment in the case of Rehmat Ullah and am of the view that the said judgment was not applicable to the facts of the present case. The question of relationship of landlord and tenant was decided in the present case by the Collector who was a competent person to decide the same. The said order was upheld by the learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue) and the Member, Board of Revenue. The revenue Courts were competent to decide the question of relationship between the landlord and the tenant. The present petitioner Riaz Ahmad has not denied the ownership of the property by Major-General Muhammad Anwar etc. As such, the revenue Courts were within their jurisdiction/authority to adjudicate upon the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The case of Rehmat Ullah pertains to ejectment proceedings under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance. In that case, the tenant had pleaded that the sale-deed and rent notes relied upon by the landlord in support of his ownership were fictitious, forged and fabricated. It was, therefore, held in that judgment that the Rent Controller was not required to go into the question of title. In the case of Rehmat Ullah, the ownership of the landlord was questioned whereas in the present case this is not the position. As such, the case of Rehmat Ullah is of no help to the present petitioner. In this view of the matter, even if there was no specific agreement between the parties creating tenancy in favour of Raiz Ahmad petitioner, then also the entries in revenue record showing Riaz Ahmad as tenant-at-will under Major-General Muhammad Anwar etc. coupled with the decree of produce rent against Riaz Ahmad is enough to prove that he was a tenant-at-will under Major-General Muhammad Anwar etc. the owners.
' The last point urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner was regarding the practice of the revenue staff to enter every person, not entered in Khana Malqiat in the column meant for Khana Khaasht. I have gone through the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel. There is no dispute about the ratio in the cited judgments. It is correct that every person who is not in possession of a land as owner is entered in Khan Khasht, but this argument is of no avail to the petitioner because not only the name of the petitioner is mentioned in the revenue record as tenant under Major-General Muhammad Anwar etc. owners but there is a decree of produce rent also against him. In this view of the matter, it is clear that Riaz Ahmad was a tenant under Major- General Muhammad Anwar etc. owners. No other point was urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The revenue Courts who passed the impugned orders were the Courts competent to pass the impugned orders. The learned counsel has not been able to point out any illegality or infirmity or any other material irregularity in the impugned orders. The impugned orders having been passed by Courts having jurisdiction to decide the matter, cannot be interfered with in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction. Reliance for this view is respectfully placed on two judgments Muhammad Hussain Munir and others v. Sikandar and others PLD 1974 SC 139 and Muhammad Sharif another v. Muhammad Afzal Sohail etc. PLD 1981 SC 246.
7. In view of the above discussion, I find no merits in this petition which is accordingly dismissed in limine. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.