MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH vs DISTRICT MANAGER, AUQAF, BAHAWALPUR and 6
This writ petition challenged an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner/Sub-Divisional Magistrate/Collector, Bahawalpur, which directed police assistance to evict the petitioner from suit land following a lease auction won by Respondent No. 5. The petitioner contended that the eviction order was non-speaking and issued without proper notice or legal procedure. The Court examined the record and observed that the petitioner had admitted before the Revenue Officer to having already vacated the land by Rabbi, 1996, and delivering possession to the new lessees. Furthermore, the Court noted that the impugned order was issued to prevent an apprehended breach of peace. The Court held that since the petitioner had already surrendered possession and the order was a valid administrative measure to maintain order, there was no ground for interference under its Constitutional jurisdiction. The Court dismissed the petition, clarifying that if the petitioner felt unlawfully dispossessed, his remedy lay in a civil suit for damages rather than a writ petition.
- Can a petitioner invoke Constitutional jurisdiction to challenge an eviction order after having already admitted to surrendering possession of the land?
- Is a writ petition the appropriate forum to seek redress for alleged unlawful dispossession when a civil remedy for damages is available?
- Does an order for police assistance to prevent a breach of peace constitute a valid exercise of administrative authority in land disputes?
' Brief facts necessary for the disposal of the instant writ petition are that the petitioner has obtained the lease of the suit land in open auction in the year 1973. His lease has been extended from time to time. He cultivated the land till Rabbi, 1995, however, Respondent No,5 succeeded to obtain the lease of the suit land through auction. He started cultivating the same from Kharif, 1995.
Petitioner allegedly got a portion of this land on sub-lease from Respondent No,5. Upon an application moved by the Respondent No,5, seeking possession of the land in question, proceedings were initiated and Tehsildar/Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Bahawalpur after holding an inquiry, sent the file, to A.C./S.D.M./Collector, Bahawalpur for providing police assistance in order to get vacated the land from the petitioner. The A.C./S.D.M./Collector, Bahawalpur, vide his order, dated 24-3-1996 passed an order accordingly, which has now been challenged through the instant writ petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order has been passed mechanically and petitioner could not have been evicted on the basis of such non-speaking order.
It is next contended that the proceedings of ejectment have not been initiated in accordance with law as no notice was ever served upon the petitioner before taking the impugned action.
3. The learned A.A.-G. Assisted by the learned counsel for the respondent No,5 vehemently opposed the petition and supported the impugned orders.
4. It is an admitted position that the land in question was no longer in possession of the petitioner since Rabbi, 1996. File shows that the petitioner has himself acknowledged before the concerned Revenue Officer; that he had already evicted the suit land in Rabbi, 1996 and possession thereof has been delivered to Faiz Bakhsh and Manzoor Ahmad sons of Muhammad. It is also on the record that there was an apprehension of the breach of peace, therefore, the police assistance was sought and vide impugned order, dated 24-3-1996 Respondent No,2 has accordingly passed a just and fair order, appropriate under the circumstances which calls for no interference. If at all petitioner has been dispossessed unlawfully, as alleged by him, he may file a suit for damages but presently no case is made out which may warrant indulgence by this Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction.
5. For what has been stated above, the instant petition fails and the same is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.