1994 PLP 1663 (CLC)

‑‑‑‑S. 10‑‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 100‑‑‑Plaintiff was not recognized as tenant in occupation of Government land ‑‑‑Ejectment‑‑‑Courts below had directed Government that plaintiff should not be ejected from the land in question, except in accordance with law‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Plaintiff however, claimed that persons similarly circumstanced had been granted proprietary rights and as such he too was entitled to be granted such rights‑‑‑High Court disposed of the appeal with observation that in case plaintiff was granted proprietary rights, question of his ejectment would not arise, otherwise he would not be able to maintain his possession and would be liable to be ejected summarily on account of his not being accepted as tenant over the land in question. Malik Sher Bahadur for Appellant. Ch. Muhammad Ashraf Bajwa for Respondents. Date of hearing: 22nd January, 1994. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 24‑9‑1973 of the learned Additional District Judge whereby the appeal of the Province was dismissed and consequently the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court dated 12‑6‑1967 was maintained.

2. The direction made in the impugned judgment and decree was that the respondent‑plaintiff' shall not be ejected except in accordance with law. The grievance of the Province in the appeal was that the respondent was not a tenant and as such was summarily liable to be ejected, therefore, the view of the learned Courts below that the respondent‑plaintiff was entitled to notice as prescribed by law before he could be evicted, was not correct.

3. The controversy with the passage of all these years appears to have become inconsequential as the learned Member Board of Revenue vide order dated 16‑6‑1983 in R.O.R. No. 2192/82 has directed grant of proprietary rights to the petitioners in the said revision petition. Shahzada Sultan Ahmad respondents claims that he has the same rights as have been granted in favour A of S.M. Durrani, petitioner in the afore-noted revision. In case the respondent is granted proprietary rights by the Board of Revenue, the question of his eviction would not arise, otherwise he cannot maintain his possession and will be liable to be ejected summarily as he has not been accepted to be a tenant. Learned counsel for the respondent does not controvert the aforesaid position. The appeal is, therefore disposed accordingly. A.A/S‑421/L Order accordingly.