P L D 1966 W (PLP)

This order will dispose of the following two revisions:

(1) Syed Haider Raza v. Syed Imam Ali Shah (No. 1521). (2) Syed Imam Ali Shah v. Syed Haider Raza (No. 1595). These counter revisions have been filed against orders dated the 6th of March 1963, passed by the Additional Commissioner, Lahore, whereby he rejected the counter appeals of the parties: The facts of the case are that the land in dispute is situated in villages Kalianwala and Kot Qadir Bux. On the 1st of June 1962, the Supreme Court directed that "during the pendency of the appeal, the present status quo will be maintained and the party in actual possession will not be disturbed". When these orders reached the Tehsildar, he found that none of the parties were in actual cultivating possession of the land in dispute in either of the two villages. In the case of village Kalianwala, there was a Supurdar, but in the case of Kot Qadir Bux, even a Supurdar had not been appointed. The Tahsildar, however, gave a decision in favour of Haider Raza petitioner. Imam Ali Shah went in appeal to the Collector who directed that, so far as village Kalianwala was concerned, the Supurdar should continue but, in respect of the land in Kot Qadir Bux, the tenants should continue to be in possession provided they furnish a security. Both the parties went in appeal to the Additional Commissioner, but their appeals were rejected. Hence these counter revisions. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record. As regards village Kalianwala, the Patwari's statement is definite that, on 1-6-1962, when the Supreme Court gave the direction, the land in dispute was with the Supurdar. The learned counsel for Imam Ali Shah has referred me to an order of the Collector dated 26-11-1962, but on further enquiries, the Collector himself found that, on 1-6-1962, the land in dispute was with the Supurdar. His (learned Collector's) order for the continuance of the Supurdar, in these circumstances, was, absolutely justified. So far as the land in Kot Qadir Bakhsh is concerned, it is established that neither party is in possession of the land, which is with tenants. The spirit of the Supreme Court's order is that the status quo about possession shall be maintained. The learned Collector's order, that the tenants should remain in possession, was, therefore, correct in this case also. I, however, find that mere furnishing a security is not in the interest of the parties and, for this also, a Supurdar should be appointed. With the appointment of Supurdars in both the villages, the interests of both the parties will be safeguarded. The landlord's share will later on be given to the party who is successful in the Supreme Court. While I reject both the counter revisions, I direct that, in the case of village Kot Qadir Bakhsh, a Supurdar should also be appointed by the Collector for the land in dispute. K. M. A. Petitions dismissed.