1988 PLP 695 (MLD)

This Writ Petition is directed against order dated 21‑2‑1983 of the. learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Faisalabad whereby he allowed the revision petition filed by the respondent No. 1 and set aside the order of Collector dated 12‑8‑1982 directing petitioner's restoration in possession of the suit land.

2. The facts giving rise to this petition are that the petitioner was ejected from the land in dispute on 23‑6‑1952. He submitted an application on 20‑7‑1982 for restoration of possession to the Collector Gojra which was allowed by the latter vide his order dated 12‑8‑1952. Mst. Nawab Bibi, respondent challenged the aforesaid order in revision before the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Faisalabad and he accepted the revision petition and set aside the order of the Collector holding that the application for restoration of possession was barred by time and further that the respondent was not provided opportunity of hearing when direction for restoration of possession was made by the Collector.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the finding of he learned Additional Commissioner holding petitioner's application being barred by time was wrong. The petitioner was ousted from the property in dispute on 23‑6‑1982 and the had filed application on 20th July, 1982, which was admittedly within one month from the day he was ejected. It was next submitted that if the learned Additional Commissioner had come to find that the respondent was not provided opportunity of hearing when the Collector restored petitioner's possession in the suit property, he should have set aside the order and remanded the case to the Collector for fresh decision of the case.

4. Learned counsel for respondent supported the findings of the learned Additional Commissioner on the point that the petitioner's application for restoration of possession was barred by time. It was pointed out that the petitioner instituted a suit for possession of the land in dispute in exercise of his right of pre‑emption and the same is pending decision before the Collector, in which the question as to whether the petitioner was tenant in the suit property required determination. Any decision given by this Court touching the aforesaid point would prejudice the case of the parties. It was also argued that the petitioner instead of availing his remedy of revision against the impugned order has filed this petition which merited dismissal having not availed other adequate remedy available to him.

5. I have considered the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on the file. As regards the first contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that the application filed by the petitioner for restoration of possession of the suit property was time‑barred, the perusal of photostat certified copy of the original application shows that it was moved on 20‑7‑1982. The Collector vide his order dated 20‑7‑1982 called for report of Tehsildar and the latter made report on the same date in compliance of the aforesaid order. Admittedly the petitioner was ousted from the suit property on 23‑6‑1982. The application moved on 20‑7‑1982 was within one month from the date of his dispossession. Obviously it was within time. The finding of the learned Additional Commissioner to the contrary in the impugned order is unsustainable. It is true that the learned Additional Commissioner has held that the respondent was not provided opportunity of hearing by the Collector while directing petitioner's restoration of possession. Learned counsel for the parties do not controvert this finding of fact arrived at by him. In this view of the matter the order passed by the Collector directing restoration of petitioner's possession in suit land is not warranted under the law being violative of the cardinal principles of natural justice. It was, therefore, incumbent upon the learned Additional Commissioner to have set aside the order of the Collector and remanded the case to him for fresh decision after hearing the parties. The next contention of the learned counsel for respondent has no merit. The order of Additional Commissioner passed in revision according to the relevant rule being final, the petitioner was left with no remedy against the impugned order except to invoke Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. The last contention of the learned counsel for the respondent is also of no force for the reason that the application seeking restoration of possession is to be decided on its own merits, irrespective of pendency of the suit for pre‑emption between the parties.

6. The upshot of the above discussion is that the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Faisalabad dated 21‑2‑1983 and the order dated 12‑8‑1982 of the Collector, Gojra are declared to be of no legal consequence. l This petition is allowed and the case is remanded to the learned Collector Gojra for fresh decision on merits after providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the parties. There shall be no order as to costs. Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1 of 1983 is also disposed of. M.Y.H./2772/L Petition allowed.