Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Writ Petition No. 1043 of 1982, decided on 19th January, 1983.
‑‑Para. 18‑Provisional Constitution Order (1 of 1981), Art. 9‑Land reforms‑Allotment of resumed land‑Deputy Commissioner in capacity as Deputy Land Commissioner competent to interfere in matter‑Deputy Land Commissioner reviewing mutation under orders of remand passed by Land Commissioner and acting merely as a Collector‑Respondent in cultivating possession of land, held, entitled to grant of land under Land Reforms Regula tion and no exception can be taken to resuming land and review ing mutation in this regard.
Khan Yaunas Khan for Petitioner.
Muhammad Rafiq Khan Chauhan for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 19th January, 1983.
The dispute between the parties relate to the allotment of Khasra 4 Nos. 2159, 2163 and 2164 measuring 23 kanals 4 marlas. This is resumed land under the Land Reforms. It was‑ allotted on 27th January, 1960 to the petitioner by the Assistant Land Commissioner Kasur. Budha respondent No. 4 challenged those orders in appeal and the appeal was accepted by the Deputy Land Commissioner on 9th June, 1960 and the land was allotted to Budha. The petitioner challenged these orders in the Court of the Land Commissioner who accepted his appeal and remanded the case to the Deputy Land Commissioner for fresh decision directing him to examine the Patwari regarding the factual position. According to the petitioner the Deputy Land Commissioner on 10th April, 1972 passed fresh orders in favour of the petitioner but no record is available of these orders. A mutation bearing No. 62 was sanctioned on 19th July, 1974 in favour of the petitioner by the Assistant Collector showing that the proprietary rights of the land have been transferred to the petitioner. The subsequent Jamabandis show the name of the petitioner as the owner. The respondent on the other hand, has shown that the contention that some orders were passed by the Deputy Land Commissioner on 10th April, 1972 has no basis as there is no record to support it and the assertion of the petitioner is only in the air. It has been pointed out that the land was permanently allotted to Budha respondent by the Assistant Land Commissioner on 5th dune, 1971, which order was con firmed by the Deputy Land Commissioner on 4th August, 1980.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the mischief in the case started when the Collector Kasur decided to review mutation No. 62 on 4th May, 1981.According to the learned counsel he was not competent to review this mutation as he had not obtained permission of the Commissioner before doing so. He has also argued that the Collector had no authority to interfere in the matter of allotment of resumed land under Land Reforms as that was entirely for the Land Com mission authorities to determine.
3. The orders of 4th May, 1981 have been passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Kasur who took up the matter on account of the orders of the Punjab Land Commission of 10th January, 1981. A copy of these orders has been shown by the learned counsel for the respondent. These orders had been addressed by the Punjab Land Commissioner to the Deputy Land Commissioner, Kasur. The orders of 4th May, 1981 have been issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Kasur who is also the Deputy Land Commissioner, Kasur. I am, therefore, in no doubt regarding the competence of the Deputy Commissioner of issuing the orders of 4th May, 1981 because he is also the Deputy Land Commissioner. As regards the review of the mutation. It is clear that the Deputy Land Commissioner was acting under the orders of remand passed by the Land Commissioner in 1960 and not acting merely as a Collector. On merits, there is no dispute that Budha respondent has been in cultivating posses sion of this land and under the Land Reforms Regulation he is entitled to the grant of this land.
4. In view of the above considerations, I find no merits in this writ petition. It is dismissed with costs.
M. Y. M. Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer