Find a Lawyer

Revision Side No. 1617 of 1963‑64, decided on 18th Septem ber 1964, District Montgomery.

‑Auction‑Reservation of adequate land for normal requirements of "proper" colony village‑Responsibility, as much of Colony Authorities as of villagers.

, S. 8‑Review‑Colony Authorities while auctioning Colony land leaving small area of about 8 acres for common purposes of village‑Villagers objecting to auction and requesting that charagah area should be provided in chak‑Deputy Commis sioner rejecting application and later, without making any reference to objection of villagers, sending up case to Board of Revenue for confirmation of auction sale‑Board of Revenue in absence of knowledge of actual situation confirming auction‑Held, fair case for review even if passed on judicial side.

Noor Muhammad for Petitioners.

Ch. Fazal Ilahi for Respondents.

This is a revision petition filed by Tausif Ali Khan and 29 others against the order, dated 6‑4‑1964 of Additional Commis sioner, Multan refusing to set aside the sale in favour of three respondents in order to reserve more area for the requirements of the' villagers. Briefly, the facts of the case that chak No. 33 A‑L, Tehsil Okara was originally a chak of auction purchaser and according to Colony rules no area for charagah or for common purposes was reserved. At the time of Partition non‑Muslim owners left the chak and a very large number of outsiders were given land and required area for common needs such as school, playground, graveyard village pond, etc. For these common purposes an area of 8 acres, 2 kanals and 1 marla was reserved against the usual reservation of 39 acres or so in normal colony villages, and remaining state land was sold by auction on 16‑5‑1963. Within a week of the date of auction and well before its confirmation the inhabitants of the village, through certain members of the local Union Council submitted a representation to the Deputy Commissioner objecting to the auction and requesting that it may not be confirmed as this would leave no area for essential requirements of the village. The request of the villagers was refused by the Deputy Commissioner under his order dated 6‑7‑1963, against which the petitioners appealed before the Additional Commissioner who rejected their appeal under his order, dated 6‑4‑1964. Against this they have come in revision.

I have heard the counsels for the petitioners and the respon dents. The main point urged on behalf of the respondents is that the auction had already been confirmed by the Government (actually by the Board of Revenue). This point was not apparently raised before the Additional Commissioner whose order deals with the merits of the case. I have, however, looked up the file of Board of Revenue confirming the auction sale in question. It appears that on 18‑6‑1963, the Deputy Commissioner sent up proposals for confirmation of the auction sale of certain lands, including the area in question. He, however, made no reference to any, objection to this confirmation, and Board of Revenue under its No. 4617‑63/3916‑SGVI, dated the 6th September 1963, confirmed the sale. On the ,other hand, as stated earlier, on 22‑5‑1963, the petitioners had already represented to the Deputy Commissioner objecting to the auctions and requesting that charagah area should be provided in the chak. The Deputy Commissioner ‑did not pass orders on this application till 6th July 1963, and in the meanwhile sent up proposals for getting the auction sales confirmed. Looking to the merits of the case the Additional Commissioner has held that as the chak in question is an auction purchasers chak, no area for charagah and other general requirements of the village was required. The position, however, is that the chak though originally listed as an. auction purchasers chak is now occupied by a very large number of refugee allottees and the area available for common needs is very small. The additional Commissioner in his order, dated 6‑4‑1964, has stated that land measuring 8 acres is available for "common needs such as school, play‑ground, graveyard and chhapar etc." This is, however, obviously inadequate. Ordinarily in normal colony villages, 39 acres are reserved for charagah and common needs. The Additional Commissioner has commented that there was considerable evacuee land available in this chak but the petitioners did not care to get it reserved for charagah and other purposes for the residents of the chak. This, however, is not a conclusive argument. If there has to be proper colonization, it is as much the responsibility of the colony authorities as of the villagers to see that the normal requirements of a proper colony village are provided for. In any case the authority responsible for confirming the auction sale should have been in possession of the objections to these auctions by the local inhabitants as urged through the members of the local Union Council. In the absence of this information it is obvious that the confirmation of the auctions was without full knowledge of the actual situation, and there would be a fair case for reviewing the order of the Board of Revenue even if it had been passed on the judicial side.

The petitioners offered, before me, 'to pay for the land and even in the revision petition it has been stated that "if the' refund of the auction price may not be desired by the Government then the petitioners may kindly be allowed to deposit an equivalent amount for the purpose". This means that Government would not be put to any loss whatsoever while the requirements of the villagers would be satisfied.

I accordingly accept the revision petition against the order of the Additional Commissioner and order that the auction of the Land in favour of the respondents may be set aside and the land granted to the villagers on the fulfilment of their offer mentioned in the last paragraph of their revision petition. Apparently some instalments have been received from the respondents. These should be refunded to them. The parties should be informed.

S. Q. ' Revision accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.