ABDUL AZIZ and others vs FAYYAZ AHMED and anothers
This matter arises from petitions directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which declared the orders of the Member, Board of Revenue passed in second revision to be illegal and without jurisdiction, thereby affirming the concurrent ejectment orders passed against the petitioners for default in rent payment. The core legal question concerns the maintainability of a second revision before the Board of Revenue under the applicable legal framework. The Supreme Court granted leave to consider the question of maintainability or otherwise of the second revision in the Board of Revenue under the circumstances of the case, and directed that status quo be maintained till the disposal of the appeals.
- Is a second revision competent before the Board of Revenue under the Punjab Land Reforms (Procedure for Ejectment Suits) Rules, 1977?
- Does the Board of Revenue have the power to call for the record of proceedings under paragraph 25 of the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 (MLR No. 115)?
- Whether the High Court correctly declared the orders of the Member, Board of Revenue to be without jurisdiction?
- Section 7(2), Punjab Land Reforms (Procedure for Ejectment Suits) Rules 1977
- Paragraph 25(7), Land Reforms Regulation 1972 (MLR No. 115)
ORDER
' SH. IJAZ NISAR, J.---These petitions are directed against the judgment, dated 5-5-1999, passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore, in Writ Petitions Nos.3379 to 3384 of 1994.
2. The facts, in brief, are that Fayyaz Ahmad respondent filed suits for the ejectment of Abdul Aziz etc., petitioners herein, on the ground of default in the payment of rent. After recording evidence the Assistant Collector, Wazirabad, by order, dated 31-12-1990 ordered the ejectment of the petitioners. The petitioners filed appeal before the Collector Wazirabad, which were dismissed on 29-6-1991. The judgments/ decrees were challenged in revision under section 7(2) of the Punjab Land Reforms (Procedure for Ejectment Suits) Rules, 1977 before the Commissioner (Revenue), Gujranwala which, too, were dismissed on 11-2-1992. The second revisions were filed before Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore, who accepted the same vide order, dated 8-11-1993.
The said order was challenged in the High Court in the Constitutional petitions by the respondents- landlords. By the impugned judgment the High Court declared the orders of the Member, Board of Revenue to be illegal, without jurisdiction and of no legal effect, and affirmed the order of ejectment passed by the Assistant Collector, Wazirabad has affirmed in appeal and the first revision by the Commissioner.
' The sole ground, which prevailed with the learned High Court, was that no second revision was competent before the Board of Revenue. Hence these petitions.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners had cited Locas v. S.M. Nasim, Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue (PLD 1984 SC 227) wherein it was held by this Court that the provisions in sub-para (7) of para. 25, of the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 (MLR No,115) empowered the Board of Revenue to call for the records of any of proceedings at any time of its own motion or otherwise which was pending or in which a Collector or Commissioner had passed an order for the purpose of satisfying itself regarding correctness, legality or propriety of such proceeding or order.
4. Leave is granted to consider the question of maintainability or otherwise of the second revision in the Board of Revenue in the present circumstances. Till the disposal of the appeals, status quo shall be maintained as per revenue record.