Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No. 316 of 1984, decided on 26th March, 1984.

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

---S. 10--Allotment of land to petitioner under Ten Years Lease scheme--Such land included in schedule of Islamabad evictees schema - Petitioner not being an Islamabad evictee, land resumed from him -Subsequent allotment to an Islamabad oustee--Allotment of land under 10/15 years Lease Scheme, held, could be resumed for reason that disputed land was included in Schedule of Islamabad Oustees Scheme.

(b) Provisional Constitution Order (I of 1981)--

---Art. 9--Constitutional jurisdiction--Matter requiring factual inquiry, held, could not be gone into by High Court in constitutional jurisdiction.

Mian Munawar Hussain for Petitioner.

This is a petition under Article 9 of the Provisional Constitution Order, 1981 whereby Fateh Muhammad petitioner wants this Court to declare the orders dated 20-10-1981, 13-2-1983, 7-7-1983 and 5-2-1984 passed by respondents Nos. 1 to 3, to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.

2. The facts leading up to this petition in brief are that the petitioner was allotted the disputed land under 10 years lease scheme which was extended for another 5 years, i.e. upto Habi 1983. On 5-10-1980 Nizar Akhtar respondent No. 4 moved application before the District Collector for the allotment of the land to him as Islamabad oustee. On this, the District Collector issued a notice to the petitioner as to why the land be not cancelled. The petitioner submitted the reply but the Collector cancelled the lease from the name of the petitioner on 20-10-1981. The petitioner challenged the order through appeal which was dismissed by the learned Commissioner on 13-2-1983. The petitioner then filed revision against the order of the Commissioner before Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue, Punjab Lahore which was dismissed on 7-7-1983. Still not satisfied, the petitioner filed review petition which was dismissed on 5-2-1984, hence this petition.

3. Before me, the learned counsel has made following submissions:-

(i) That the land in dispute was not included in the schedule of Islamabad Oustees Scheme;

(ii) The petitioner had been vested with the right to purchase land in dispute vide notification dated 3-9-1979.

(iii) That the respondent was not Islamabad oustee.

(iv) That the disputed land being situated within 3 miles of the Town Committee could not be included in the schedule of Islamabad Oustees Scheme.

I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel with care and have not been able to persuade myself to agree with him. I find that the three respondents Nos. 1 to 3 have concurrently found that the disputed land was included in the schedule of Islamabad Evictees Scheme and as such was not available for allotment under, 10/15 years lease scheme and could be resumed at any time. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to refute these findings. I am convinced that since Islamabad Oustees Scheme was a permanent scheme therefore, the land included in the schedule could not be allotted, under 10 years lease scheme to the petitioner. The learned counsel has A also failed to show that the respondent was not Islamabad oustee. The assertion of the learned counsel that the disputed land is situated within 3 miles of the Town Committee requires measurement at the spot which cannot be done by this Court while sitting in writ jurisdiction.

5. For what has been stated above, there being no merit in the petition, the same is dismissed in limine.

A. A.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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