P L D 1966 W (PLP)

A I R 1924 Lah. 557 and A I R 1931 Lah. 726 ref. Ch. Amjad Khan for Petitioner. Muhammad Iqbal Cheema for Respondent. This is a second revision filed against an order dated the 3rd of March 1965, passed by the Additional Commissioner, Lahore, whereby the first revision preferred by the petitioner was rejected. The facts of the case are that the land in dispute was acquired by the Government for the respondent. The tenant was occupying the land before acquisition and continued to do so after acquisition. The respondent put in an application under section 3 of the Punjab Protection and the Restoration of Tenancy Rights Act of 1950. The Revenue Officer, ordered ejectment of the petitioner. The petitioner went in appeal to the Collector, but it was dismissed. He then filed a revision before the Additional Commissioner, but it was rejected. Hence this second revision. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. This is a second revision and has to be dealt with under the principles laid down under section 84 of the Punjab Tenancy Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued at length that the Secretary of the Society was not authorized to put in an application before revenue officer. In this case, he referred me to the Notification issued by Government under section 86 (2) as Punjab Government Notification No. 728, dated 1‑11‑1887. This Notification refers to revenue Courts only and, so far as revenue officers are concerned, the plain meaning of the words used in section 86 (i) (b) have to be considered. There under an application can be brought by a recognized agent which would mean a duly authorized agent. In this case, the Secretary was authorised through a resolution. It is true that it was not a specific resolution meant for this particular case only but, under the law as it stands, such a specific authorization is not necessary for applications to be made to revenue officers. The next contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the land in dispute ceases to be land as defined under the Punjab Tenancy Act and after acquisition because it was acquired for building purposes. Mere acquisition does not change the nature of a property. What was acquired was land as defined by the Punjab Tenancy Act and remains so even after acquisition. In this connection the learned counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to A I R 1924 Lah.

557. That ruling is not at all applicable because it deals with pre‑emption cases. The learned counsel for the respondent has, however, drawn my attention to A I R 1931 Lah. 726 where the party in occupation of land is defined. Such occupation is with reference to the person occupying it and the use he puts it to and it does not refer to the possession or occupation by an owner. In this case, the tenant is still using the land for agricultural purposes and, therefore, would be occupying the land as defined in the Punjab Tenancy Act. As regards the question of fact as to whether relation of landlord and tenants existed between the parties or not, there has been a finding of facts by the authorities below and as the land remains land and is occupied for agricultural purposes by the tenant, there can be no justification for again going into this question at all. In these circumstances, I do' not find that there has been any wrong exercise of jurisdiction which was not vested in the revenue officer as has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Having considered all these facts, I see no justification for any interference. The second revision fails and is dismissed hereby. K. M. A. Revision dismissed.