P L D 1972 Rev (PLP)

2. The facts briefly are that one Fazal father of respondent was all allottee of square No. 43 situated in Chak No. 62/5‑L Tehsil and District Sahiwal. On his demise the tenancy was allotted to his son the respondent on 30‑6‑1969. The said Fazal deceased was the elder brother of the petitioner, Qadir. The petitioner cultivated the tenancy jointly with the father of the respondent i.e. Fazal. After allotment in favour of the respondent dispute between Qadir and Ghulam arose. The District Remount Officer on 29‑6‑1970 reported to the Collector that the petitioner is in unauthorised possession of the tenancy and therefore he should be dispossessed. The Collector ordered the ejectment of the petitioner on 11‑8‑1970 but later on ordered status quo. The Collector, however, on 13‑10‑1970 withdrew the notice of ejectment. The respondent filed an appeal against this order before the Commissioner, Multan Division, who remanded the case. On remand the Collector Sahiwal, vide his order dated 1‑9‑1971 observed that the dispute is between the parties over possession and did not intervene in the matter. An appeal against this order was filed by the respondent before the Commissioner who accepted it and ordered that petitioner should be dispossessed under section 32 of the Act. Hence this second appeal.

3. I had seen the records of the case including the order of the Collector dated 1‑9‑1971, of the Commissioner dated 8‑12‑1971 and on 30‑12‑1971 had heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as heard Muhammad Anwar son of Qadir petitioner whose statement was also recorded.

4. The Commissioner had passed his order dated 8‑12‑1971 whereby he asked the Collector to take action under section 32 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act on the assumption that the respondent Ghulam had not been given unencumbered possession of the tenancy. The facts of the case on the other hand are that the respondent Ghulam was given unencumbered possession of the land through Parcha Dakhal and mutation No. 69 was sanctioned in his favour on 23‑5‑1970. Subsequent to the sanction of the mutation and delivery of unencumbered possession, dispute between respondent Ghulam and petitioner Qadir arose and the District Remount Officer reported to the Collector with his letter dated 26‑6‑70 that Qadir should be ejected as unauthorised occupant.

5. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Muhammad Anwar on 30‑12‑1971 I had issued the stay order and had asked for the presence of respondent to argue their respective cases. Arguments on behalf of Qadir were again heard on 5‑1‑1972 and as the Court time had more than finished the case had been adjourned for today for hearing the arguments on behalf of Ghulam.

6. In the arguments on 30‑12‑1971 and 5‑1‑1972 the learned counsel for the petitioner had urged that an application dated 3‑11‑1970 under the Protection & Restoration of Tenancy Rights Act against Qadir petitioner lodged by Ghulam respon?dent is pending. In this petition Ghulam respondent had clearly stated that Qadir was a tenant‑at‑will with share of produce under him, It is therefore established both by records as well as the statement of Ghulam respondent that he is in full possession of the square and that his relationship with Qadir is that of landlord and the tenant. The possession of Qadir is therefore, not that of a trespasser of the State Land, which could be dealt with under section 32 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act. In this connection he quoted the ruling of the Full Bench of the Lahore High Court as reported in A I R 1928 Lah. 121 that the purpose of section 32 is to provide a summary remedy for recovering land and the Collector acting as the agent of the Government is authorised to remove the trespasser from the land and obtain possession of it on behalf of Government. According to this ruling, this section does not warrant the Collector to intervene in a dispute between private persons. This ruling has further been corroborated by the ruling of the Division Bench reported in P L D 1964 Lah. 224 where it has been held that the power vested in the Collector is to safeguard the interest of the State Land to save State Land from illegal occupation by squaterers and trespassers. The section is not intended to be operated for the benefit of the private party contending against another. As has been stated above proceedings for ejectment of Qadir petitioner have already been lodged by I Ghulam respondent under the provision of subsection (3) of the Protection & Restoration of Tenancy Rights Act which act specifically provides for the disposal of problems arising out of the relationship of landlord and tenant. In any case this Act provides for resumption of possession of the land by the Collector. Here the dispute and problem is not that one of resumption of the land in question in favour of the Government but that of Ghulam throwing his tenant Qadir out from the tenancy. Even if recourse was taken to section 32 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act, the possession of the land would be restored to the Government. But in this case the intention is not to restore the possession to the State since the land already stands allotted to Ghulam. The learned counsel, therefore, contended that in these circumstances it would not be appropriate to resort to the provisions of section 32 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act to eject Qadir at the present stage when a case under the Tenancy Act is already pending against him.

7. It was obvious to me that this was a case more of family dispute rather one of illegal entry and possession under section 32 or one of dispute between landlord and tenant. I therefore, advised the parties to arrive at some kind of family understanding whereby this litigation could end. During the A later part of the hearing on the last date, i.e. 5th January 1972, a compromise was arrived at and both the parties recorded their statements before me, incorporating the terms of the compromises but at the last minute because of lack of understanding about another case of ejectment of Qasim against which an appeal had been filed by Qasim, son of Qadir about his ejectment from six killas out of half square formerly under the cultivation of Qadir, the compromise fell through. The case was, therefore, adjourned for today for hearing the arguments on behalf of Ghulam respondent.

8. The case has been called today twice. Ch. Noor Illahi Advocate for the respondent has been present. He has stated before me that some compromise has been reached between the parties whereby 4 killas out of half square formerly under cultivation of Qadir, is being given to Qadir for cultivation during his lifetime. In view of this compromise the petitioner and his counsel have not turned up.

9. Since this case had been heard in considerable detail and lot of the time had already been taken, I have recorded the above‑detailed order. Since the petitioner has not appeared to persue his case, presumably on account of compromise arrived at, the case is dismissed in default and the stay order granted by my order dated 3‑12‑1971 is also vacated. Order accordingly.