FAIZU Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KACHHI
This matter concerns civil petitions for special leave to appeal arising from a dispute between Jagirdars and tenants regarding the payment of batai (share of crops) for lands in Sub-Tehsil Chattar, District Karachi. Following the abolition of jagirdari via Martial Law Regulation No. 64, the Deputy Land Commissioner initially issued instructions terminating the rent-receiving interests of Jagirdars. However, the Commissioner subsequently directed the withdrawal of these instructions, prompting the Deputy Land Commissioner to issue fresh directives. Tenants challenged the legality of the Deputy Land Commissioner's withdrawal order through writ petitions, which the High Court dismissed in limine. The core legal questions involve the nature of the petitioners' title and interests in the land, the specific effect of Martial Law Regulation No. 64 on these tenancies, and the legality of the Deputy Land Commissioner's order cancelling his previous memorandum. Finding that the issues raised were complex and not free from difficulty, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to allow for a full hearing, while refusing the prayer for a stay of proceedings.
- What is the nature of title and interests of tenants in lands previously held under Jagirdari?
- What is the effect of Martial Law Regulation No. 64 on existing tenancies?
- Is an order by a Deputy Land Commissioner cancelling a previous administrative memorandum legally valid?
- Martial Law Regulation No. 64
ORDER
1. FAZLE‑AKBAR, J. ‑This order will dispose of Civil Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal Nos. 358 to 363 of 1967.
2. The dispute in these cases is between the Jagirdars and tenants over the question of batai in respect of lands of certain villages in Sub‑Tehsil Chattar, District Karachi. In the past the petitioners used to pay batai to the Jagirdars. After abolition of jagirdari by Martial Law Regulation No. 64 with effect from 7th February 1959, the Deputy Land Commissioner by his Memorandum dated the 27th April 1966, issued instructions to all Nazims and Tehsildars in the said District that the rent receiving interests of the Jagirdars had been terminated from the aforesaid date and that if they had realized any batai after that date, they should be asked to return the same. After issue of the above Memorandum the tenants stopped payment of batai to Jagirdars and this led to various proceedings between the parties. The Commissioner then by his memorandum dated 25th June 1966, informed the Deputy Land Commissioner that the Met no issued by him on 27‑4‑66 had no legal foundation and should be withdrawn. Thereafter, the Deputy Land Commissioner issued fresh instructions to Nazims arid 'Tehsildars directing them not to act under the earlier instructions "ac tenants then filed separate writ petitions challenging legality of the order of the Deputy Land Commissioner raving his Memorandum dated 27‑4‑66. As the points raised were identical in all the petitions the High Court heard them together and by a consolidated judgment dismissed the he in lemine. They now seek special leave to appeal to this Court.
3. The questions raised in these cases are;
(i) as to the nature of title and interests of the petitioners in the lands held by them ;
(ii) the effect of Martial Law Regulation No. 64 on the said tenancies, and
(iii) the legality of the order of the Deputy Land Commissioner canceling his previous Memorandum.
4. As the points raised are not free from difficulty the petitioners should be given a right to prefer a‑first appeal against the order of the High Court. We accordingly grant leave to appeal each of these cases. Security Rs. 1,000 in each petition.
5. Prayer for stay is refused.
6. Leave granted: