1983 PLP 1412 (CLC)

‑‑ S. 13(H)‑Provisional .Constitution Orders (1 of 1981), Art. 9‑Termination of tenancy rights‑Constitutional petition filed over a dispute on title of land, and petitioner in present petition contesting as respondents in previous petition (admitted to regular hearing and order of status quo granted)‑Petitioners in present petition claiming to be in cultivating possession of agricultural land, aggrieved against order passed by Mukhtiarkar and Tenancy Tribunal on application filed by respondents whereby their rights of tenancy terminated under S. 13(H) of Act and their appeal and revision also dismissed Petitioner taking shelter of status quo granted in previous Cons titutional petition submitting that their right as cultivating haris of land in question are maintained and orders passed by Tenancy Tribunal and other forums, terminating their tenancy rights are violation of order maintaining status. quo‑Previous constitutional petition containing no mention of petitioner's being tenants of dis puted land and their cultivating possession and plea of order of status quo not taken before Tenancy Tribunal or revisional authority‑Tenancy Tribunal examining relevant record and hearing both parties and petitioners heard in appeal and also in revision application‑Petitioners, held, failed to prove protection of status quo order and no illegality pointed out in proceedings before Ten ancy Tribunal and other forums‑Order of Tenancy Tribunal maintained, in circumstances. Muhammad Ali Shaikh for Petitioners. Date of hearing : 13th March, 1982. Petitioners claim to be in cultivation possession of agricultural land Survey No. 249 and others situate in Deh Sutiari, Taluka Tando Adam, District Sanghar. They are aggrieved against order dated 11th August, 1981 passed by Mukhtiarkar and Tenancy Tribunal on an application, filed by Muhammad Yousuf, Gul Muhammad and Mst. Noor Khatoon, whereby their tenancy rights have been terminated under section 13(H) of Sind Tenancy Act. Appeal and revision application filed by the petitioners have been dismissed. These three orders have been impugned in this petition but copy of order dated 31st October, 1981 passed by Assistant Commissioner, Shahdadpur dismissing the appeal has not been produced in this petition. It is prayed in the petition that this Court may declare the three orders passed and impugned herein to be not in accordance with the provisions of Sind Tenancy Act and further that the petitioners be declared to be in cultivating possession of the land in question and are not liable to be ejected. After hearing Mr. Muhammad Ali Shaikh on 9th March, 1982 we have dismissed this petition in limine by a short order for reasons to be recorded later, which follow now. We have examined order passed by Mukhtiarkar and Tenancy Tribunal as well as order passed by Deputy Commissioner, Sanghar on 3rd February, 1982, whereby he has dismissed the revision application. Contention of Mr. Muhammad Ali Shaikh is that termination of tenancy rights of petitioners is against the provisions of Tenancy Act and they have committed no such act to warrant the passing of such orders im pugned herein. He has further submitted that petitioners have paid zamindari share in respect of Kharif and Rabi crops of 1980‑81 to one Anwar Dahri who had purchased the land in question and had also pro vided to the petitioners seeds and fertilizers. Mr. Muhammad Ali Shaikh further argued that there was dispute over title of land in question between respondents and a set of other persons including Anwar Dahri and in that context Constitutional Petition No. D‑308/81 has been filed in the High Court in which Anwar DShri and others are petitioners and Muhammad Yousuf. Gul Muhammad and Mst. Noor Khatoon (respondents in this petition) are named as respondents among others. This petition has been admitted to regular hearing and order of status quo has been granted. Mr. Muhammad Ali Shaikh takes shelter behind this order of status quo and has further submitted that since this order was passed, . rights of the petitioner as cultivating haris are to be maintained and the impugned orders should not have been passed by the Tenanc Tribunal and other forums in violation of orders passed as stated above in Constitutional Petition No. D‑308/81. Mr. Muhammad Ali Shaikh, has produced copy of the memorandum of petition in that case and orders nassed by the Court. We have seen the record of that petition also. In Constitutional Petition No. 308/81, Anwar Ali and‑three others are petitioners while 17 persons have been impleaded as respondents in cluding fivc Government functionaries. Remaining respondents are private persons, and respondents, before us namely Muhammad Yousuf, Gul Muhammad and Msf. Noor Khatoon have been impleaded as res pondents Nos. 10, 12 and 13 in that petition, case of petitioners in that Petition (C. P. No. D‑308/81) is that petitioners had purchased agricultural lands situate in Delis Berandi, Belhari and Sutiari, which stood mutated in the names of claimants Mst. Hakima and Merajuddin and subsequently Kharas in their names were cancelled and against which petitioners be came aggrieved and filed that petition. Power in Petition (C. P. No. D 301/81) is for declaration that orders dated 9th December, 1975, 30th April, 1976, 20th November, 1980 and 20th December.1980 canceling Khotas of original transferees/respondents and subsequent purchasers be delcared to be illegal and void. Petition (C. P. No. D‑308/81) has been admitted vide order dated ?0th March, 1981 and on interlocutory applica tion notice has been issued and in the meantime maintenance of status quo bas been ordered. There is no mention in this petition of tenants and cultivating possession of the dispute lands. We do not find substance in the argument of Mr. Muhammad Ali Shaikh that petitioners before us, who claim to be tenants of land in dispute, are protected by order of status quo in C. P. No. D‑308/31. It appears from the two impugned orders produced in this petition that this plea or order of status quo passed in C. P. No. D‑308%81 was not taken before Tenancy Tribunal or revisional authority because there is no mention in these two orders of such plea having been taken by the petitioners. The only plea taken before these forums by the petitioners was that the petitioners had been paying zamindari share to respondents regularly but did rot pay share in respect of Kharif and Rabi crops of 1980‑81 for the reason that according to the petitioners the land in question was purchased by new zamindar Anwar Dahri who had such documents to prove his claim and also provided to the petitioners seeds and fertilizers. Both parties were heard by the Tribunal, statements were recorded in which the petitioners admitted having paid zamindari share to Anwar Dabri and not to the respondents to whom they have been paying in the past. Respondents produced evidence in detail about the crops, survey numbers and the valuation of crops. Tribunal also examined Tapedar of that Beat, recorded his statement and perused the revenue record including entries in village form and pass book which were in favour of respondents. Tribunal also examined Khasra Girdawari register which proved claim of respondents about what crop was cultivated in which survey number and by which hari. Apart from bald .admission made by the petitioners that they paid zamindari share for the crops in question to Anwar Dahri, who claimed to be new zamindar and bad documents in proof of such claim, no efforts were made by the petitioners to produce such documentary evidence nor Anwar Dahri was examined before the tenancy tribunal. On the other hand evidence available before the Tribunal including revenue record indicated that there was no change of khata in favour of Anwar Dahri. After such full hearing and minute examination of relevant record the Tenancy Tribunal has given the deci sion as stated above. Petitioners were heard in appeal and also in revision application. No such plea has been taken before the tribunal or for that matter before other formus with regard to the order of status quo in petition No. C. P. D‑308/81, Mr. Muhammad Ali Shaikh has failed to convince us that petitioners could take protection of that order when they were not party to‑ that petition nor it a as mentioned in that petition that petitioners were in cultivating possession of the land in question. Mr. Shaikh has also failed to point out any illegality in the proceedings before the Tenancy Tribunal and other forums. On the other hand we do not find anything wrong with the orders impugned in this petition, which appear to have been passed after hearing having been given to both parties and examination of the relevant record. In these circum stances we find no justification for interference and the petition is dis missed in limine. M. Y. M. Petition dismissed.