' The respondent Walayat-un-Nisa inherited the rights of her deceased husband Nusrat Ullah as Member of the Co-operative Farming Society of Chak No, 53/G.B., Tehsil and district Faisalabad.
She brought an ejectment suit against the petitioner in the Court of A.C.-I which transferred to the AC./Collector, Faisalabad on the failure of the A.C.-I to decide the suit within the prescribed period of 60 days. The learned A.C./Collector after striising the issues held that the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties and that the respondent had defaulted in the payment of rent. He accordingly decreed the ejectment of the petitioner. After an unsuccessful appeal, the petitioners Jan Muhammad and others are in revision against the orders of the learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Faisalabad, dated 3-10-1985.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioners seeks the reversal of the decree on the following grounds :-
(1) that under the Ejectment Rules framed under M. L. R. 115 the A.C./Collector was required to decide the ejectment suit within 30 days of the transfer of the suit to his Court. His failure to decide the suit within the prescribed period vitiated the decree against the petitioners ; and
(ii) that the respondent was a lessee from the Co-operative Farming Society and, as such, without any rights of landlord qua the petitioners who were the actual cultivators.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent has countered these contentions with the argument that the law does not stipulate that the failure of the A.C./Collector to decide the ejectment suit within a period of 30 days would have the effect of vitiating the ejectment decree. Further, that the respondent is a lessee in possession from the Co-operative Farming Society and, as such, vested with the right of a landlord to seek ejectment of a tenant from her holding.
4. I have considered these arguments. As regards, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the ejectment suit must be deemed to have failed since not decided within 30 days by the Collector. I have referred to the Punjab Land Reforms (Procedure for Ejectment Suits) Rules, 1977 which provide as follows :- "If the said Court failed to decide the case within the stipulated period of 60 days, the case shall stand transferred to the Court of Collector which would be tried in the same manner as in the original Court. The case transferred shall be disposed of within 30 days and the orders by the Collector shall be final."
The provision of this rule that the case shall be disposed of within 30 days in my considered view is directory and in no way can be interpreted as implying that the orders if passed by the Collector beyond the period of 30 days would be illegal or void. If such were the intentions of the legislature then the rules would have read differently and also provided for some remedy to the aggrieved party. The only interpretation which can be placed on the rules is that the Collector should decide the suit as far as possible within the period of 30 days. On this issue I would, therefore, hold that the failure of the Collector to hand down the decision within the period of 30 days does not render the decree void or suffering from any material irregularity.
5. On the second point of contention that the respondent was not a landlord 1 would consider this argument as devoid of any force. The respondent has inherited the same rights as vested in her deceased husband and since she remained a Member of the Co-operative Farming Society she was entitled to receive rent from the petitioners. I would, therefore, agree with the concurrent findings of the lower Courts that the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties. Since the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners are not established I would reject this revision.
Revision rejected.
P D 1986 Rev. 72 [Sind] Present : Ayaz Hussain Ansari, Member, Board.Of Revenue MUHAMMAD ATIQUE-Petitioner versus SHOUKAT JAMALI-Respondent Case No, S.R.O.R.-368 of 1982-83, decided on 19th May, 1984. West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (X H of 1967)- -- Ss. 161 & 164-Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act (XLVII of 1958), S. 18 -Appeal against mutation-Non-exercise of jurisdiction by Revenue Functionary-Effect-Such non-exercise of jurisdiction by Additional Comhaissioner against mutation under mistaken belief that peoceeding related to repealed Ordinance (XLVII of 1958), held, being misconceived, would be set aside by Board of Revenue in exercise of Revisional jurisdiction-Entries in revenue record were direzted to stand in favour of person having allotment earlier in date-Cancellation of allotment being beyond competence of Additional Deputy Commissioner, after repeal of Ordinance XLVII of 1958, could not be sustained. [pp. 72, 73]A, B & C D. M. Lohatta for Petitioner.
Hassan Mahmood Baig for Respondent.
' This is a revision petition against the order, dated 5-12-1982 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Hyderabad Division dismissing the appeal of the petitioner being not maintainable and maintaining the order of the Additio.Ial Deputy Commissioner-I, Hyderabad regarding cancelling the allotment of S. No, 280 admeasure 5-14 Acres of Deh Dhachrapur Taluka, Hyderabad and allotted the same to respondent Shoukat Jamali.
2. Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the case papers. The Additi.Lnal Commissioner, Hyderabad in his impugned order hold that he is not competent to entertain the appeals as it had been preferred Displaced Land Settlement Act, 1958 which had since been repealed. The Additional Commissioner has erred in holding that the appeal was preferred before him under the repealed Displaced Persons Act, 1938. The factual position is that the appeal before the Additional Commissioner had been filed against the orders of the Deputy Commissioner who had not decided the case under the aforementioned Act but it is a case of mutation. I have gone through the relevant papers of the case and perused the record. This is a case of duplicate ailotment of the same land. The disputed land was allotted to Mst. Ghafoori, on 13-12-1958 against her claim and on the basis of this allotment entries were made in the revenue record in her favour. Thereafter, petitioner purchased the land in question from Mst. Ghafoori by registered sale-deed, on 26-5- 1980. The respondent Shoukat Jamali claimed before the Additional Deputy Commissioner-I that he had been allotted to him against Q P R-V, on 6-l0-1959 whereas Mst. Ghafoori had been allotted the land against her claim, on 13-12-1959. The Additional Depucy Commissioner, cancelled the allotment of Mst. Ghafoori on the ground that her allotment was subsequent to the allotment of Mr. Shoukat Jamali (respondent).
3. On verification from the record that the A. D. C.-I had wrongly' held that allotmeat of Mst. Ghafoori was subsequent. The fact is that allotment in favour of Mst. Ghafoori is, dated 13-12-1958 and not 13-12-1959 (as erroneously observed by the A. D. C.-I) whereas allotment in the name of the respondent is, dated 6-10-1959. In the circumstances, the A. D. C.-I was firstly not justified to cancel the allotment of Mst. Ghafoori because her allotment is earlier and secondly it was not within his competence to cancel an allotment of evacuee and which is function of the competent civil Court after repeal of the Rehabilitation and Settlement Laws.
4. In the foregoing position, the petition is allowed and the orders of the Additional Commissioner and the Additional Deputy Commissioner-I are set aside. The entries in the revenue record shall stand in favour of the petitioner. The aggrieved party is, however, at liberity to seek remedy, before the competent civil Court.
Revision .