1989 PLP 2485 (CLC)

M. Tariq Mahmood for Respondents. Date of hearing: 26th April, 1989. The petitioner have challenged the order of the Additional Commissioner (Revenue) Multan whereby their petition of ejectment was dismissed.

2. Briefly stated the facts arc that respondents preferred suit for ejectment of the petitioners from suit land situated in village Fazil Shah, Tehsil Kabirwala District, Multan. The A.C.I. dismissed the suit on 29‑12‑1981. The respondents then filed an appeal before the A.C./Collector Kabirwala, who accepted it on 19‑6 1982. The petitioners challenged the said order before the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Multan who dismissed it vide impugned order dated 8 10‑1985. Hence this petition.

3. I have heard the parties. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that during the pendency of appeal filed by the respondents before the A.C./Collector, Kabirwala, the petitioners filed transfer application before the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), who vide his order dated 9‑6‑1982 directed that status quo should be maintained till 22‑6‑1982 and Robkar No.1103 dated 13 6‑1982 was issued accordingly and the petitioners also intimated the A.C./Collector regarding the issuance of stay order but he ignored the stay order and disposed of the appeal against the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that stay order issued by the Additional Commissioner (Revenue) became effective from the time and date it was granted and the proceedings thereafter by the Collector were void ab initio. This aspect of the case was also brought to the notice of the Additional Commissioner (Rev.) but he did not look it and dismissed the case of the petitioners.

4. The counsel for the respondents stressed that the order of the Additional Commissioner, is in order and may be maintained.

5. Since a very valid question of law has been raised in respect of the proceedings taken by the A.C./Collector, after issuance of stay order by the Additional Commissioner (Revenue) it is desirable that this issue must be disposed of before proceeding further. The versions of the petitioners have already been stated above. The case of the respondents is that stay order was not submitted before the Collector, therefore, he was justified in proceeding with the case and deciding it.

6. It may be mentioned here that it has been held by Lahore High Court in case of Mussarat Tahira v. Muhammad Yaqoob reported in 1981 CLC 501 that stay order takes effect as soon as passed and proceedings taken in the case after date of such order are null and void. It has also been laid down by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in case Haji Abdul Khaleel v. Javed Ahmad 1983 SCMR 869 that "stay order takes effect from time it is passed irrespective of the fact whether or not it has been served on the person concerned."

7. In view of the rule laid down in the above‑mentioned cases it is obvious that after the issue of the stay order on 9‑6‑1982 which had become effective from the date of issue the A.C./Collector had ceased to have jurisdiction to proceed with case. I, therefore, accept the revision petition and set aside the order of A.C./Collector dated 19‑6‑1982 being coram non judice. Any superstructure built A on a void order will also collapse with the striking down of the void order. Hence the order dated 8‑10‑1985 of the Additional Commissioner (Revenue) is also set aside. The case is remanded to the A.C./Collector Kabirwala, for fresh decision on merits after hearing both the parties. M.A.K.322/R Case remanded