Find a Lawyer

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

---S. 29--Board of Revenue Memo. No. l065070 / 1177-CIIV, , dated 18-4--1970--Conversion of "Dera Deh" into Abadkari- Collector, held, was fully competent to order such conversion.

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

---S. 29--Board of Revenue Memo. No. 1065070;1177-CIIV, dated 18-4-1970--Conversion of "Dera Deh" into "Abadkari" show-cause notice--Ihata being not rr occupation and use of inhabitants, such inhabitants, held, were not entitled to show--cause notice.

(c) Provisional Constitution Order (1 of 1981)--

.

---Art. 9--Matter requiring factual inquiry--Such matter, held, could not be dealt with in constitutional jurisdiction.

Bashir A. Mujahid for Petitioner.

M.R. Khalid for Respondents.

This is a petition under Article 9 of the Provisional Constitution Order, 1981 whereby Naseer Ahmad petitioner wants this Court to declare the orders dated 7-6-1978, 10-8-1978, 22-8-1979 and 29-1-1980 of the Colony Assistant, District Collector, Additional Commissioner and the Member, Board of Revenue, to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.

2. The facts leading up to this petition, in brief, are that Ihata No. 51 measuring one Kanal one Marla and 7 Sq. Ft. in Chak No. 114/9-L, Sahiwal was being used as Dera Deh by the inhabitants of the Chak. On 7-6-1971, the Colony Assistant recommended that Dera Deh be converted to Abadkari whereon District Collector vide his order dated 10-8-1978 allotted the same to Allah Yar, Muhammad ' Ali and Nizam Din, respondents Nos.3 to 5. Naseer Ahmad petitioner as a Lambardar of the Chak filed ' appeal before Additional Commissioner Revenue), which was dismissed on 22-8-1979 as barred by time. The revision against this order was also dismissed by Member, Board of Revenue on 29-1-1980 hence this writ petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits:

(i) that the District Collector was not legally competent to convert Ihata from Dera Deh to Abadhari;

(ii) that the recommendation made by the Colony Assistant was mala fide and collusive and that respondents Nos. 3 to 5 had managed recommendation with the connivance of Patwari and Girdawar;

(iii) that the order dated 10-7-1978 was passed by the District Collector at the back of the petitioner and other inhabitants of the Chak;

(iv) that the .appeal before the learned Additional Commissioner was not barred by law, inasmuch as, an illegal and void order can be challenged through appeal at any time; and

(v) that the findings of Additional Commissioner .and Member Board of Revenue are factually incorrect.

4. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner with care and have not been able to persuade myself to agree with him. I find that the Secretary Colonies, Board of Revenue in his report stated that the District Collector was fully competent to convert Ihata from Dera Deh to Abadkari as envisaged in Board of Revenue Memo. No. 1065070/1177-CIIV dated the 18th April, 1970. He further stated that Ihata was in fact lying vacant on the spot and no construction whatsoever was raised by the inhabitants of the Chak. The learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to controvert the report of the Secretary. As for the grievance that the order was passed at the back of the petitioner and other inhabitants, I am of the view that since Ihata was not in the occupation and use of the inhabitants, therefore, they were not entitled to show-cause notice. Furthermore, the petitioner has been heard at the stage of appeal and revision before the Member, Board of Revenue. The Member, Board of Revenue had observed that;

"The record shows that category of the Ihata in dispute was changed into that of Abadkari after due publicity and the petitioner who is a Sarbrah Lambardar also signed the Parwana of Mushtary Munadi."

As for the allegations against Girdawar and Patwari, the matter requires factual enquiry which is not desirable in writ jurisdiction. Moreover, the appeal before the Additional Commissioner was hopelessly time-barred.

5. For what has been stated above, there being no force in the submissions made by the learned counsel, the petition 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.