Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No. 362 of 1983, decided on 20th March, 1983.

Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (IV of 1912)‑

‑‑ S. 24‑Provisional Constitution Order (I of 1981), Art. 9‑Re‑sumption of land‑‑Collector under a Permanent Scheme resuming land entrusted to petitioner under lease on 5th February, 1979 when lease was to expire in Rabi 1980‑‑Collector under a Gallantry Award Scheme allotting half square of land to a Military Officer and remaining half to an oustee of Islamabad‑‑Petitioner challeng ing half square land allotted to Islamabad oustee and claiming its proprietary rights under Scheme notified on 3rd September, 1979 and further claiming that orders of Board of Revenue placing land in Schedule of Islamabad oustees was without lawful authority and that petitioner not provided with opportunity of personal hearting Orders resuming land, however, passed after proper notice to peti tioner and same attaining finality and change of description from Gallantry Award Scheme to Islamabad Oustees Scheme found ,within competence of Board of Revenue‑Petition dismissed.

Ch. Muhammad Rafique Ferozepuri and Muhammad Attique for Petitioners.

Syed Tassadaqe Hussain Jillani and Akhtar Masood, A. A.G. and Kh. Muhammad Asghar for Respondents.

The petitioner was holding lease for temporary cultivation for a period of five years. It was due to expire in Rabi 1980. when it was resumed on 5th February, 1979 on the orders of the District Collector.

Sahiwal as the land was required for utilization under a permanent Scheme. Subsequently half of the square was allotted under the Gallantry Award Scheme to Lt.‑Gen. Muhammad iqbal Khan and the other half was returned by the G.H.Q. as it was not required by them under that scheme. This half square was then allotted to Sher Muhammad on 16th October, 1979 in open auction for temporary cultivation. Subsequently this half square was allotted to respondents 4 to 8 on 14th February, 1982 under another permanent scheme known as the Islamabad Oustees. The petitioner has no quarrel with the allotment of half square under the Gallantry Award Scheme to Lt.‑Gen. Muhammad Iqbal Khan but claims that the other half which was returned to the Collector should have been given back to the petitioner, who, in the meantime had applied for grant of proprietary rights under the scheme notified by the Punjab Government on 3rd September, 1979. He also claims that the orders of the Board of Revenue placing this land in the schedule of the Islamabad Ousters was without lawful authority as the petitioner was condemned unheard and thereby deprived of his rights without being given a chance to set a his claim.

2. The orders of 5th February, 1979 by the District Collector re suming the whole square of land which was on lease with the petitioner were passed after proper notice to the petitioner. He did not challenge these orders and, therefore, these orders are deemed to have attained finality. The petitioner's lease having been terminated he had no right in this land after that date. The further disposal of the land, therefore, depended entirely on the revenue authorities to whom the land had reverted after the termination of tenancy in favour of the petitioner. The scheme, of 3rd September, 1979 under which the petitioner claims a presumptive' right, came more than six months after the termination of the tenancy. The petitioners, therefore, cannot claim any rights under the scheme of 3rd September, 1979. Needless to say that the scheme applied only to existing leases, and not to the leases which had come to an end before that date. As regards the change of description of this land from Gallantry Award Scheme to the Islamabad Oustees Scheme, this is a matter entirely within the competence of the revenue authorities and the petitioner can make no grievance of it as after 5th February, 1979 he bad no concern with the land. He, therefore, did not have a right of being heard before the land was disposed of in one way or the other by the revenue authorities. The pendency of his application for grant of pro praetor rights is of no consequence as he had no right of grant of pro -prietary rights as there was no existing lease in his favour at the time when the scheme came into force.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has laid great stress on the question of resuming the whole Square No. 59 instead of 'resuming only half square out of it as required by the Military Authorities for allotment under the Gallantry Award Scheme, but he cannot be permitted to raise this objection at this stage when he did not challenge the orders of 5th February, 1979 in appeal or revision even though these remedies were available to hint. Even otherwise, whether the District Collector chooses to terminate the whole square of land or only half, it is a ques tion of which the District Collector is the best judge and this is further evidenced from the fact that on 20th February, 1980 the District Collector again decided that the half square which had been returned by the G. H. Q. should be kept for other gallantry awardees and not disposed of under lease for temporary cultivation. It is nobody's case that the District Collector was acting mala fide in any way. He was only giving. priorities to the requirements of a permanent scheme, in preference to the rights under temporary cultivation scheme.

4. In view of the above considerations, I find no merit an this Writ Petition. It is dismissed with costs.

M. Y. M. 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.