ALI MUHAMMAD Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER/DISTRICT COLLECTOR, VEHARI

ORDER

The petitioners have moved this Constitutional petition' praying therein that the respondents may be directed to produce the record of the entire proceedings undertaken by them and further that the same may be quashed.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that in the year 1962 the land‑owners of Chak No.171/EB, District Vehari, gave their consent whereby the land measuring 56 Kanais was given to the petitioners on rent basis. It was agreed that the income of the land in question shall be used for welfare of the village community. The land in question is now being looked after by a Committee constituted by the people of the village. The case of the petitioners is that they have been paying the rent of the land regularly to the village Welfare Committee. In this respect the learned counsel for the petitioners stated that they have paid the rent up to date to the Committee. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there was no legal justification for the Assistant Commissioner to hold vide his order Annexure 'C' that the petitioners were in arrears in the payment of the rent to the landlord. Learned counsel forcefully submitted that the petitioners are in cultivating possession of the land in question as tenants and that they have been paying rent regularly to the landlord. It is stated that the petitioners are not at all in arrears.

3. Mr. Tassadaq Hussain Jillani, learned Assistant Advocate /General is present on Court's call. Respondents Nos. 5, 6 and 7 are also present and have been heard. The representative of respondent No.2 is also present. He has submitted that he has no objection in the grant of relief to the petitioners. Respondents Nos. 5, 6 and 7 have made statements that they have no objection in the acceptance of the writ petition. The learned Law Officer has stated that if the petitioners have not paid the rent to the Welfare Committee then they can be proceeded against strictly in accordance with law. However, he stated that from the available record there is nothing to show that the petitioners are in arrears. Be that as it may, the petitioners have paid the rent of the land in question to the landlord up‑to‑date and there is nothing due from them to the village Welfare Committee. Even if it be assumed that the petitioners are in arrears concerned landlord has a remedy open under law to initiate proceedings for recovery of the rent as well as their ejectment from the land in question by filing a regular suit under law. The order dated 25‑8‑1987 vide Annexure 'C' passed by the learned respondent No.2 appears t~ be without any legal basis. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned order has been passed against them behind their back and without hearing them. Thus, the impugned order is a nullity in law. He urged that the Deputy Commis sioner/ Collector was not competent under any provision contained in the relevant. laws to pass the impugned order. This proposition o law has finally been conceded by the learned Law Officer. He submitted that the landlord can proceed in the case for the recovery of rent as well as for the ejectment of the petitioners from the land in question strictly in accordance with law. There is much force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The order passed by the learned Assistant Commissioner, dated 25‑8‑1987 being patently illegal must be vacated. This does not mean that the landlord of the land shall remain without any remedy. The landlord of the land if so advised may file a suit for the recovery of the rent if any and further for the ejectment of the petitioners in accordance with law.

4. The upshot of the above discussion is that the writ petition is accepted and the impugned order is set aside.

H . B. T. /A‑317/L Petition accepted.