1991 PLP 1296 (SCMR)

‑‑‑‑S.50‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Restoration of possession by Revenue Authorities‑‑‑Competency‑‑‑Petitioners being owners in estate ousted respondent, not an owner in estate from the land in question falling in shamlat deh‑‑‑Collector restored possession to respondent‑‑‑Petitioners' appeal failed and their revision was pending before Board of Revenue‑‑‑Board of Revenue, however, had ordered maintenance of status quo till decision of revision‑‑‑Petitioners also filed civil suit for declaration that they were owners in possession of land in question which was decreed by Trial Court but dismissed by the Appellate Court as also by the High Court‑‑‑Leave to appeal‑‑‑Ownership of petitioners over the land in dispute was not denied by respondent‑‑‑Question whether petitioners were entitled to take over possession of land in the manner in which they did, was considered by Collector and he decided it against them which was upheld in appeal‑‑‑Matter was still pending before Board of Revenue‑‑‑Even though Board of Revenue had directed maintenance of status quo it had not yet set aside order of Collector as affirmed by Appellate Court‑‑‑Revenue Authorities could restore possession of their holding to tenants in the event they were forcibly evicted there from‑‑‑No ground was made out for leave to appeal‑‑ Petition was dismissed. Hassan Ahmad Khan Kanwar, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Qamaruddin Khan Meo, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Mirza Nasir Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court and Hamid Aslam Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent. Date of hearing: 28th November, 1989. SAAD SAOOD JAN, J: ‑‑The dispute in these two petitions for special leave to appeal relates to land measuring about 14 kanals and 13 marlas and situate in village Natha of Tehsil Nankana Sahib. It is part of the shamilat‑e‑deh and is owned by the owners in the estate. It was in the possession of the respondent who is not an owner in the estate.

2. The petitioners who are owners in the estate were able to oust the respondent from 8 kanals and 13 marlas out of the land in dispute. The respondent approached the Collector inter alia for the restoration of his possession of the area from which he had been thrown out. The Collector accepted his application and directed the petitioners to restore his possession. The petitioners filed an appeal before the Commissioner which was dismissed. They then filed a revision petition before the Board of Revenue which is still pending and an order with regard to maintenance of status quo has been made.

3. The petitioners also filed a suit in a representative capacity for a declaration that they were owners and in possession of the land in dispute. They also sought a consequential relief to restrain the respondent from interfering with their possession. The trial Court decreed the suit in so far it related to the land out of which the respondent had been ousted. The respondent filed an appeal and the petitioners preferred cross‑objections before the District Judge. A learned Additional District Judge dismissed the appeal of the petitioners and accepted the cross‑objections of the respondent and dismissed the suit. The petitioners filed civil revisions in the High Court. A learned Single Judge dismissed the revision petitions with the direction that the respondent should not forcibly dispossess the petitioners but observed that he would be free to obtain possession through execution of the order of the Revenue Courts. The petitioners seek leave to appeal from the judgment of the High Court.

4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners we are not persuaded that the judgment of the High Court suffers from any infirmity. The ownership of the petitioners over the land in dispute is not denied by the respondent. The question whether they were entitled to take over its possession in the manner in which they did, was considered by the Collector and he decided it against them. His order was upheld by the Commissioner. The matter is now pending before the Board of Revenue. Even though the Board of Revenue has directed maintenance of status quo but it has not yet set aside the order of the Collector as affirmed by the Commissioner. It is not in dispute that the Revenue Authorities can restore possession of their holding to the tenants in the event they are forcibly evicted thereof. One cannot avoid the suspicion that the present suit was brought to frustrate the orders of the Revenue Authorities. These petitions are dismissed. AA./M‑1199/S Petitions dismissed.