1987 PLP 1261 (SCMR)

Aftab Iqbal Chaudhry, Advocate Supreme Court and Hakeem M. Sardar Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellant. Ch. Khalil‑ur‑Rehman, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑ on‑Record for Respondents Nos. 1, 3 to

6. Respondents Nos. 2, 8 to 11 : Ex parte. Date of hearing: 26th April, 1987. SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J‑‑ Leave to appeal was granted to the appellant to examine a common question of law arising in a number of similar appeals but as those question of law on which the other appeals were admitted, do not directly come up for decision in this particular appeal, it has been separated for disposal. On the promulgation of Punjab Tenancy (Amendment) Act VII of 1952 introducing section 114 in the Punjab Tenancy Act, consequent mutations three in number were attested in respect of agricultural land situate in village Jhakkarpur Tehsil and District Multan. The Assistant Collector allowed 1/6th share to the landlord and 5/6th share to the tenants and converted the land of tenancy proportionately into their respective ownerships. These mutations were, however, reviewed on 29‑5‑1965 and the sharing between the landlord and the occupancy tenants was reversed. The appeal of the tenants against this order was dismissed. Thereafter, the tenants resorted to the Civil Court while the landlord resorted to the Revenue Court for getting their share of produce from the respondents. In that revenue suit also the question arose as to what was the true share of the landlord and the tenants with respect to such a tenancy. On 18‑2‑1971, the Revenue Court stayed the proceedings on the ground that the question of law involved with regard to sharing was directly in issue in some other matter in proceedings pending before the High Court. On appeal by the landlord, the interim order was vacated but the Member, Board of Revenue in revision stayed the proceeding on certain conditions. It was this interim order which was challenged by the tenants in the High Court by a Constitutional Petition. The learned Judge while disposing of the main controversy involved in the writ petition and in other writ petitions and in a Regular First Appeal, disposed of this Constitutional Petition of the tenants on the ground that it had become infructuous. Mr. Sardar Khan, the learned counsel for the appellant does not question the merits of the decision of the High Court concerning the interim order that the Constitutional Petition with respect to it had become infructuous as the main question on which the decision was awaited had come in the meantime. The real grievance of the learned counsel for the appellant is that as the suit brought by the occupancy tenants in the Civil Court concluded with the judgment of the District Judge against which no redress was sought by the tenants, the proportion in which they were to share the property had attained finality and could not be the subject matter of subsequent adjudication, variance nor could the decision in writ petition dealing with the main controversy re‑open the case otherwise concluded. This is a matter which has not been considered in any forum so far nor are there the relevant documents on record and this is beyond the scope of the Constitutional Petition from which this appeal has arisen. The order of the learned Judge holding the Constitutional Petition to be infructuous being unexceptionable, no interference is called for and this appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. M.B.A./G‑22/S??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed