IMAM DIN Versus MAQBUL AHMAD SHEIKH

ORDER

SHAD SAOOD JAN, J .‑‑This is a petition for special leave to appeal from the order dated 11‑5‑1985 of the Lahore High Court dismissing the constitutional petition of the petitioners.

2. The petitioners filed a petition for special leave to appeal (C.P.S.L.A. No.577/78) from the order of the High Court in Writ Petition No.540/R‑1977. While filing the petition they moved this Court for an interim order for the protection of their possession over the property in dispute. This application was allowed by a learned Judge in Chamber with the following direction:

"If the petitioners are in possession, their possession should not be disturbed till further orders in the petition for special leave to appeal provided they furnish security to the satisfaction of A.C. Chunian that they will pay the mesne profits from the date of their initial possession uptodate i.e. uptill the order of this Court in P.S.L.A."

The petition for leave to appeal was dismissed on 12‑6‑1979 The petitioners filed a review application which was also dismissed on 11‑4‑1981. While dismissing the petition this Court directed;

"The A. C. /Collector, Chunian, is, therefore, directed to work out and award the amount of mesne profits in terms of the order of this Court dated 4‑1‑1979 within three months time. The parties will have the right to represent their case before him."

In pursuance of the direction given by this Court, the A. C. /Collector, Chunian, worked out the amount of mesne profits as Rs.22,210 although the claim of the respondents was in the sum of Rs.1,12,831. The respondents felt aggrieved by the amount determined by the A.C./ Collector and filed an appeal before the Additional Commissioner. The Additional Commissioner raised the amount of mesne profits to Rs.55,113. The petitioners challenged the order of the Additional Commissioner in revision before the Board of Revenue but without any success. They then invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court to challenge the legality of the orders of the Additional Commissioner and the Board of Revenue but again failed. They now seek leave to appeal from this Court.

3. In support of this petition it is contended that while determining the amount of mesne profits the A . C. /Collector was acting as a person designata and as such his order was not appealable before the Additional Commissioner. Consequently, the orders passed by the Additional Commissioner and the Board of Revenue were without jurisdiction.

4. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioners needs examination. Leave to appeal is granted. Security for costs in the sum of Rs.2,000. The appeal may be made ready for hearing on the present record with permission to the parties to file additional documents, if necessary.

5. We are informed that the respondents have already withdrawn the amount of mesne profits as computed by the Assistant Commissioner/ Collector. The recovery of the remaining amount is stayed provided the petitioners furnish security for the additional amount al worked out by the Additional Commissioner to the satisfaction of the A . C . /Collector, Chunian within one month from today.

M .I . /I‑29/S Leave granted.