MUHAMMAD RAFT Etc. vs ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER (REV.), SARGODHA
This petition for special leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing a writ petition that challenged an order of the Additional Commissioner (Revenue). The Additional Commissioner had allowed a revision application and directed an ejectment suit to be decided afresh according to law. The core legal question concerned the effect of the prescribed limitation period under the Punjab Land Reforms (Procedure for Ejectment Suits) Rules, 1977, where an Assistant Collector decides a case after the maximum period of sixty days. The Supreme Court held that upon the expiry of sixty days, the case automatically stands transferred to the file of the Assistant Commissioner/Collector, rendering any subsequent decision by the Assistant Collector without jurisdiction. The Court affirmed the legal position that the matter is deemed pending before the Assistant Commissioner for fresh adjudication and dismissed the petition in limine.
- What is the legal effect under the Punjab Land Reforms (Procedure for Ejectment Suits) Rules, 1977, when an Assistant Collector fails to decide an ejectment suit within the maximum period of 60 days?
- Does an order passed by an Assistant Collector in an ejectment suit after the expiry of the prescribed 60-day period remain with jurisdiction?
- Whether a revision petition is competent against an ejectment order passed beyond the statutory 60-day period?
- Rule 4(5), Punjab Land Reforms (Procedure for Ejectment Suits) Rules 1977
ORDER
1. ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.-This is a petition for special leave to appeal from the judgment of Lahore High Court dated 28-5-1979 dismissing Writ Petition No. 2823 of 1975 filed by the petitioners. By the Writ Petition, the petitioners sought to challenge the order of the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Sargodha dated 22-5-1979 whereby he allowed revision application of the respondents Nos. 2 to 5 and directed the Assistant Commissioner/Collector to decide the ejectment suit between the parties, afresh, according to law.
2. The High Court noticed the fact that Assistant Collector Grade 1 Sargodha had decided the case before him after the maximum period o 60 days prescribed in this behalf, and according to rule 4
(5) of the Punjab Land Reforms (Procedure for Ejectment Suits) Rules, 1977 the case, on the expiry of 60 days stood automatically transferred to the file of the Assistant Commissioner/Collector and consequently, the order of the Assistant, Collector be, without jurisdiction, the case is deemed to be pending before Assistant's Commissioner and this was indeed the effect of the order impugned before the High Court.
3. The legal position pointed out by the High Court that must prevail o the facts of this case is unassailable; the learned counsel for the petitioners to the contrary pointed indeed nothing out to us.
4. There is, therefore, no merit in this petition and it is dismissed in limine,