Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 1109 of 1975, decided on 21st February, 1981.

(On appeal from the judgments of Lahore High Court, dated 9th October, 1975 and 22nd October 1975 in W. P. No. 2481 of 1975 and R. A. No. 160 of 1975).

Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912)--

‑‑ S. 7‑Colony Scheme‑Condition 3 (a) read with Condition No. 8 --Petitioners not shown to fall under category of persons eligible for grant of land on lease under Scheme‑Contention as to their revision application to Board of Revenue having been decided by a person not authorized to do so by law, held, of no consequence‑Leave to appeal declined

Mian Saeed‑ur‑Rehman Farrukh, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Sh. Salah‑ud‑Din, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.

Nemo for Respondents.

J.‑‑The two petitioners were granted land in dispute on 13 years' lease under Scheme framed by the Government of the Punjab under Notification No. 1622‑71/1205‑CLI, dated 24‑4‑1971. On a complaint that both the lessees were Government servants, the first petitioner being a Patwari in District Multan and the second being a clerk in District Muzaffargarh were thus ineligible for grant of lease of the land situated in Chak No. 59/DP, Tehsil Bhakkar, District Mianwali, the Commissioner by the order, dated 1‑2‑1974, directed that the grant of lease be cancelled. After a round of litigation, the case was heard by Mr. S. M. Nasim, the Additional Chief Land Commissioner, as a Member of the Board of Revenue, Lahore in revisional jurisdiction, and he too rejected petitioners' claim. Petitioner's challenge to these orders in Lahore High Court in Writ Petition No. 2481 of 1975 faded and their application for review of the judgment was also dismissed by the High Court. They now seek special leave to appeal.

Mian Saeed‑ur‑Rehman Farrukh, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Mr. S. M. Nasim, the Additional Chief Land Commissioner was not competent in law to exercise powers as a Member of the Board of Revenue and the order passed by him is without lawful authority.

We, however, find that it has been throughout held that the petitioners are not eligible for the grant of lease under the Scheme. This conclusion is based on Condition No. 3 of the Scheme which reads "Eligibility.‑No person shall be eligible for the grant of lease under these conditions unless before or at the time of grant of such lease‑

(a) he actually cultivates or has been cultivating any land during a period to be specified by the Board of Revenue is recorded as such in Khasra Gardawari maintained by Revenue Patwari or in case of dispute regarding correctness of its entries, he is held to be actual cultivator in the manner hereinafter provided ; and

(b) he has no land of his own anywhere or owns cultivable land not exceeding four acres anywhere in Pakistan."

The Scheme also prescribes under Condition No. 8 the mode in which preference is to be given in selecting lessees. The land is first to be offered to those eligible persons of the village or revenue estate who have been cultivating such land during the period specified in pursuance of Condition 3 (a); and in case no eligible person is desirous to the grant of lease or if no such person is found, the land after due publicity, is to be offered strictly in the following order of priority or preference ;

Firstly‑to those eligible persons who are residents of village or revenue estate where land is situated ;

Secondly‑to these eligible persons who are residents of the villages or revenue estates adjoining the village or revenue estate where the land is situated; and ,

Thirdly‑to the eligible persons residing in any other village or revenue estate Provided that in all the aforesaid three cases, 75 per cent of the total area of such land shall be allotted to the eligible persons having no land of their own anywhere in Pakistan and 25 percent area there of shall be allotted to eligible persons owning culturable land not exceeding 4 acres anywhere in the country.

The High Court has upheld the view that since the first petitioner is a patwari in Burewala, District Multan and the second, a clerk in Muzaffargarh, both places being far away from Tehsil Bhakkar, District Mianwali where the land is situated, and that they were not actually cultivating any land in the village, or for that matter they being Government Servants could not be "self‑cultivators" and were not, therefore, eligible for the grant of lease under the Scheme.

All that the learned counsel submits in this behalf is that the Govern ment service by the person is no disqualification for his eligibility for the grant of lease of land under the Scheme. Even if this argument were to accepted for the sake of argument, it does not advance petitioners' case any further, for, they even otherwise have not shown to fall under the category of', eligible person prescribed by Condition No. 3 (a) read with Condition No. 8 of the Scheme.

Since the petitioners were initially ineligible for the grant of lease of the land under the Scheme, the argument that their revision application to the Board of Revenue was decided by the person who was not authorised by law to deal with it is of no consequence.

This petition therefore fails and is dismissed in limine.

Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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