1990 PLP 771 (MLD)

Mirza Manzoor Ahmad for Petitioner. Kanwar Mohammad Younas for Respondent No.3. Date of hearing: 12th November, 1989. This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution by Mst. Rifat Zohra is directed against an order of the learned Assistant Commissioner/Collector dated 14‑1‑1989 dismissing the suit for ejectment of the respondent Nisar Ahmed under Paragraph 25 of Martial Law Regulation No.115 on the ground that the period, during which the suit should have been heard and decided, had expired and the petitioner's suit had become barred by time.

2. The petitioner claims to be an owner of the land in suit on the basis of a decree of the Civil Court dated 6‑5‑1984. She instituted the suit for ejectment against the respondent Nisar Ahmed on 10‑11‑1987 under Martial Law Regulation No.115. During the pendency of the suit, Mst. Kalsoom, mother‑in‑law of Nisar Ahmed, respondent, instituted proceedings under section 12, subsection (2) of the C.P.C. challenging the decree in the petitioner's favour. The application was rejected on 1‑11‑1986. A revision petition against that order was dismissed on 11‑5‑1987. On 23‑11‑1987, Mst. Kalsoom instituted a writ petition in this Court and status quo was ordered to be maintained. Taking advantage of that order, Nisar Ahmed, respondent, applied before the Assistant Collector that the proceedings in the suit be stayed and they were stayed and they remained stayed till 22‑5‑1988 when the writ petition was dismissed. The petitioner then prayed for the revival of the proceedings. As by Rule 4 of the Punjab Land Reforms (Procedure for Ejectment Suits) Rules, 1977 (to be referred to as the Rules), the Assistant Collector was required to dispose of the suit within sixty days of its receipt and that period had expired, the Assistant Collector by his order dated 17‑12‑1988 referred the suit to the Collector. The suit was placed before the Collector for the first time on 4‑1‑1989 when the order in question was made.

3. By Rule 4, sub‑rule (5), if the said Court (the Court of the Assistant Collector Ist Grade) fails to decide a case within the stipulated period of sixty days, the case shall stand transferred to the Court of Collector concerned to be tried in the same manner as in the original Court. The case so transferred shall be disposed of within thirty days and the order passed by the Collector shall be final". Sub‑rule (6) of Rule 4 provides that "when the case stands transferred to the Collector under sub‑rule (5), the lower Court shall forward the record of the case to the Collector alongwith an explanation for its failure to decide the case within the prescribed period of sixty days." Thus the Collector, it appears clearly, was required to decide the suit within a period of thirty days from the date of the receipt of the file in his Court. The file was admittedly received thereon 4‑1‑1989 and the order in question was made on 14‑1‑1989 when the period of thirty days had not yet elapsed. Further, as was held in Abdus Sattar and 2 others v. Additional Commissioner, Goraya, District Gujranwala and 4 others P L D 1989 Lahore 384, "the failure to comply with the time limit of thirty days for the disposal of the case is not visited either by the penal consequences by rejecting the plaint or its automatic transfer to the next higher authority, in the hierarchy, namely, the Commissioner. This being so, the mere disregard of the time limit provided in sub‑rule (5) of Rule 4 of Land Reform Rules, 1977, does not entail any legal consequence amounting to invalidity of the order passed by the Collector. He, therefore, does not become functus officio to dispose of the matter after the expiry of stipulated period of A thirty days:" Learned counsel for the respondent Nisar Ahmed concedes that this is the correct legal position.

4. For these reasons, the petition is accepted and the order of the Collector dated 14‑1‑1989 is declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The consequence will be that the suit for ejectment shall be deemed to be pending before the Collector to be disposed of in accordance with law. The parties are left to bear their own costs. H.B.T./R‑195/L?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition accepted