P L D 1963 W (PLP)

" the above S. No. was lying barran and has been occupied, it is reported by Mirbahars without his knowledge and consent. Not only that, but kehas applied to the police and Revenue authorities for removal of the encroachments, but to no effect. A copy of the letter of Mukhtiarkar to the S. H. O. Old Sukkur, available on the record, shows that the Mirbahars who have unauthorizedly occupied the S. No. 17, of the appellant, are reluctant to remove their encroachment though they were served with a notice. The Deputy Commissioner also reports that since the appellant has no hand in the unauthorized construc tions raised by "Mirbahars" the appellant deserves a lenient treatment. I agree with the Deputy Commissioner and take a lenient view of the case. Under the Land Revenue Code. I can however give him no ruling. His appeal is therefore rejected. He should approach competent Court of law or relinquish the land if so advised." The portions (italicised) in the above extract make no sense and reveal the pathetic plight of occupants of land in the Southern Zone, because of the misapplication of the provisions of sections 65 and 66 of the Sind Land Revenue Code or of refusal to act on the part of the Authorities concerned to grant relief in deserving cases. In R. O. R. No. 15/62‑63 decided by me on 1st March 1963, I had pointed out the manner in which the D. C. Sukkur had not taken action, obviously dictated by the facts before him, and had instead advised the petitioners to appeal to the Additional Commissioner, who, even after visiting the spot, refused to interfere and gave further advice to them to approach the Magistrate or the Police in case permission granted by the Collector for conversion of residential area into industrial one turns out to be a public nuisance. In the present case also neither the D. C. nor the learned Additional Commissioner have cared to look up what the law provides. The levy of such a heavy tawan for a few months use of an acre odd of vacant land by trespasser fisherman has been made by a Robkari, dated 14‑6‑61, which does not even mention the provisions of law under which the penalty is levied. The learned Additional Com missioner, who has expressed willingness to take a lenient view in agreement with the D. C. has refused to do so, as he felt, he cannot do so, under the Sind Land Revenue Code. Strange to say that he has not bothered to refer to any section of the Sind Land Revenue Code. The section applicable is 66, and is in the following three separate parts :‑ (a) the occupant and any tenant or other person, holding under or through him, shall be liable to be summarily evicted by the Collector from the land used for purposes other than the better cultivation of the land, without, the prior permission of the Collector, and from the entire survey number of which it may form a part ; (b) the occupant shall also be liable to pay in addition to the new assessment which may be leviable under the provisions of section 48 for the period during which the said land has been so used, such fine as the Collector may subject to the general orders of the Provincial Government direct ; and (c) any tenant of any occupant or any other person holding under or through an occupant, who shall without the occupant's consent (use any such land for) any such purpose, and thereby render the said occupant liable to the penal ties aforesaid shall be responsible to the said occupant in damages. What is surprising in this context is that at the instance of the petitioner (occupant) the Mukhtiarkar, Sukkur had, more than a month before the imposition of the fine, written his letter No. 1744, dated 4th May 1961, to the S. H. O. Sukkur for the eviction of the unauthorised Mirbahar encroachers and had requested him to help the petitioner and his co‑sharers in getting them vacant possession of their Qabuli land. To this day the unfortunate petitioner is without the use of this land unauthorisedly occupied by the Mirbahars. Owing to this lack of awareness with the first clause of section 66 as cited at (a) above, or the tendency, which I have noticed on the part of Revenue Officers not to bother to help law abiding citizens to secure their right by summary ejectment of the trespassers, the petitioner and his co‑sharers filed a civil suit in the Court of Civil Judge, Sukkur which was decreed in their favour on 12th December 1962. The decree shows the cost as Rs. 112 but the petitioner states that the entire case post him from Rs. 500 to Rs. 700 I take a serious view of this attitude of indifference on the part of officers concerned and would like the Commissioner to please call upon them to explain their conduct not only in not helping the petitioner to evict the unauthorised occupants summarily, but in imposing such a heavy fine on the petitioner when he has been held by them not to be at fault. The Additional Commissioner owes a serious explanation as to why he did not refer to the provisions of the S. L. R. C., which as we have seen do not leave him so helpless either in ejecting unauthorised occupants or in reducing the penalties.

4. In so far as the merits of the present case are con cerned the revision is entitled to succeed to the following extent :‑ (a) A direction is issued to the Collector to exercise his powers under section 66, S. L. R. C. to evict the unauthorised Mirbahars from the petitioner's land, unless in the interest of their rehabilitation and with consent of the petitioner and. his co‑sharers, he find they deserve to be settled at Sukkur and the present site is held to be suitable for their rehabilitation in residential plots. In that case permission can be given subject to the normal charges and penalties ; and (b) the amount of fine to be imposed must be redirected afresh in accordance with the provisions of section 66 cited at (b) and (c) above. Its extent should be such as can be realised from the unauthorised occupants and the petitioner should be assisted in realising it from them so as not to be out of pocket himself on account of their criminal trespass. The petitioner has stated that the Mirbahars have constructed three pacca houses apart from some 50 hutments. He place the value of these constructions at Rs. 1,000 at the most.

5. In the result, therefore, I accept the revision, set aside the orders of the Collector and the Additional Commissioner and direct that Mirbahars should be evicted on the above men tioned terms and also that the imposition of the penalties should be done afresh according to the law, as directed in the above paragraph. K. M. A. Revision accepted.