2002 PLP 1563 (MLD)

This order shall dispose off Criminal Miscellaneous No.24‑Q of 1996 and Criminal Miscellaneous No.25‑Q of 1996. 2, The petitions were submitted for quashment of F.I.R. No.94, dated 1‑7‑1995 registered at Police Station Saddar, Sargodha for offence under section 188, P.P C. and were admitted to hearing by order, dated 24‑1‑1996. The afore‑mentioned case was registered against the petitioners at the instance of Assistant Commissioner, Sargodha on the ground that petitioners had lifted wheat crop without permission of the landlord namely Surraya Kausar in violation of the order passed by the District Magistrate under section 144, Cr.P.C., whereby tenants were required to lift crops/wheat after paying due shares of the landlords.

3. The case of the petitioners is that they were tenants under Muhammad Asmat Ullah Khan on land measuring 55‑1/4 Kanals bearing Khatuni Nos.418 and 419, Khewat No. 169 situated in Chak No.30/NB Tehsil and District Sargodha and had been duly sharing the produce with the original landlord and that Rabi Crop of 1994 was likely shared by the petitioners with their original landlord. According to petitioners Mst. Surraya Kausar transferred land comprised in the aforesaid .vide Mutation No.488, dated 29‑9‑1994. Asmat Ullah Khan came to know about this transfer and he filed a declaratory suit challenging Mutation No.488, dated 29‑9‑1994 on the ground that he never appointed Muhammad Sadiq as his attorney and had not authorized him to sell the property and the land was not sold to Mst. Surraya Kausar lawfully and interim injunction was sought for which, was granted by the Civil Court by order dated 12‑2‑1995 and possession of Asmat Ullah Khan was protected. Later the ad interim injunction granted in favour of Asmat Ullah was confirmed by order dated 12‑9‑1995. Result of the injunctive order was that Asmat Ullah continued to be the landlord of the present petitioners. By the time the Rabi Crop was harvested Asmat Ullah according to record continued to be the landlord of present petitioners and Mst. Surraya Kausar obviously could not claim to be the landlord of tenants on land bearing Khatuni Nos.418 and

419. Learned counsel for Surraya Kausar had tried to argue that since mutation was not set aside, she would be deemed to be owner of the land in question and landlord of petitioners and was entitled to receive share produce. The contention obviously is without any basis. Mst. Surraya Kausar in view of the order of Civil Court seized of the dispute between the parties was not the landlord of present petitioners. She could not claim from the petitioners share of Rabi Crop which the petitioners had already paid to the original landlord. Asmat Ullah obviously had not complained against the petitioners. The Assistant Commissioner without taking into account the situation on the ground and the legal position had directed for registration of the case against petitioners. Direction of Assistant Commissioner for registration of case was unlawful as that, in effect, amounted to violating the order passed by the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. The registration of afore‑mentioned case was not sustainable in law or on facts and accordingly case F. I. R. No. 195, dated 1‑7‑1995 under section 188, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Saddar, Sargodha and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed. H.B.T./M‑1163/L Proceedings quashed.