MUHAMMAD ISHAQUE vs FAZAL MUHAMMAD and another
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court order that dismissed a writ petition challenging the grant of proprietary rights to allottees of land under the Ejected Tenants Scheme. The petitioner, who had been inducted as a tenant by the allottees, sought to challenge the allotment of proprietary rights to them. The core legal questions addressed were whether the petitioner had the locus standi to challenge the title of his landlords, whether the challenge was barred by laches, and whether the petitioner could assail the title of the allottees under whom he entered possession. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming that the petitioner lacked locus standi and was estopped from challenging the title of the landlords under whom he held the land as a tenant. Furthermore, the Court agreed that the challenge to the Board of Revenue's order was barred by laches. The decision reinforces the principle that a tenant cannot challenge the title of the landlord under whom they were inducted.
- Does a tenant inducted by an allottee have the locus standi to challenge the grant of proprietary rights to that allottee?
- Is a tenant estopped from challenging the title of the landlord under whom they were inducted?
- Can a writ petition be dismissed on the grounds of laches when challenging a long-standing order of the Board of Revenue?
ORDER
' M.S.H. QURAISHI, J.--The land in question had been allotted to respondents 1 and 2 under the Ejected Tenants Scheme in the year 1963. The petitioner who had been inducted by them as a tenant in the year 1979 applied for allotment of the land to him on 17-1-1980. Some time later, the said respondents applied for grant of proprietary right which was allowed subject to their clearing the arrears of rent. The petitioner agitated the matter but ultimately his revision application was dismissed by the learned Member, Board of Revenue, on 21-8-1980 with the following observation: "The respondents are allottees of the land in dispute under Ejected Tenants Scheme. Proprietary rights were granted to such allottees in 1960. The respondents fulfilled the conditions for about 19 years and qualified for the grant of proprietary rights. The cultivation of the land in dispute by the petitioner during 1979 does not disqualify the respondents to get proprietary rights."
2. Thereafter, the land was against cancelled from the name of the respondents by the order of Collector, dated 30-8-1980 but this order was set aside in appeal by the Additional Commissioner on 16-12-1981, who directed that the order passed by the Board of Revenue be acted upon.
3. The petitioner challenged the order of the Additional Commissioner dated 16-12-1981 at also that of the Member, Board of Revenue of 21-8-1980 by a writ petition but the same was dismissed by the High Court by the impugned order dated 18-4-1983 for the reasons that (1) the petition is so far as it challenges the order of the Member, Board of Revenue, dated 21-8-1980, suffered from lathes, (2) as regards the order of the Additional Commissioner, dated 16-12-1981, the petitioner could not succeed because that was only a direction to implement the said order of the Member, Board of Revenue, (3) the petitioner had no locus standi in the matter, and (4) he having entered as a tenant under the respondents could not assail their title as landlords.
4. After hearing learned counsel, we feel satisfied that the decision taken by the High Court is correct and calls for no interference by this Court. The petition is dismissed.