Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No.4230 of 1983, decided on 22nd April, 1986

‑‑‑Art.199‑‑Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912), Ss.10 et 30(2)‑‑Allotment of land, cancellation of‑‑Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise of‑‑Land in dispute was regularly and legally allotted under Ejected Tenants Scheme and allottee of same was cultivating in compliance with terms and conditions of lease‑‑Proprietary rights in respect of property in dispute were granted to allottee through registered conveyance for which allottee had paid dues‑‑Direction of Board of Revenue to Collector to again enquire into matter, held, amounted to interference without any jurisdiction with legally settled transaction‑‑High Court in constitutional jurisdiction declared such direction of Board of Revenue as without lawful authority and of no legal effect.

Malik Talib Hussain Awan for Petitioner.

Altaf Mahmood Khan for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 22nd April 1986.

This writ petition is being confined only to the questioning of the order, dated 15‑2‑1983 passed by the respondent, Member (Colonies) Board of Revenue Punjab, Lahore in so far as the learned Member (Colonies) Board of Revenue has issued a direction to the Deputy Commissioner/ Collector calling upon him to enquire into the matter and allow the allotment of only 63 Kanals which was actually made to the Petitioner if he was entitled for the same under the Rules.

2. The petitioner was allotted State land comprising Square No.91, Kills Nos. 9, 11, 12, 19 to 22 measuring 63 Kanals in Chak No.5/Rakh Dhrema, Tehsil and District Sargodha. The Colony Assistant/ Collector vide his 0er dated 12‑4‑1959 allotted another parcel of land measuring 36 Kanals comprising Square No.91, Killas Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 10 in the same Chak by stating thgt he added the area to the allotment of the petitioner for acting as temporary Lumbardar in the Chak for recovering the arrears from the allottees of the State land and other Government dues‑‑A work which he was doing gratis and had to incur some expenditure and inconvenience. The proprietary rights were conferred on the petitioner as to the entire land. He paid the whole price to the Government whereafter the land was sold through a registered conveyance dated 31‑5‑1980. One Nazar Muhammad filed an application before the Colony Assistant/ Collector Sargodha against the petitioner for the cancellation' of the petitioner's allotment which application was rejected on 16‑6‑1979. An appeal filed thereafter was also rejected by the Additional Commissioner, Sargodha on 25‑6‑1979. Nazar Muhammad as alleged got an application filed before the respondent ‑for cancellation of the land allotted to the petitioner and for recall of the conveyance deed as having been obtained by fraud, through another person namely Abdul Hameed. The learned Member (Colonies) Board of Revenue held that, that was evident that through fraud the excess allotment of 36 Kanals was made. The authority below erred in allowing the petitioner the proprietary rights of 99 Kanals under ejected tenants scheme, where under he was only entitled to the grant of the proprietary rights to the extent of 63 Kanals. While exercising his jurisdiction under section 30(2) of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 he set aside the order passed by the Collector regarding the allotment of 121 Acres of land as an excess area at the same time: directing the Deputy Commissioner/ Collector to again enquire into the matter and allow the allotment of only 63 Kanals which was actually made in favour of the petitioner if he was entitled for the same under the Rules.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has very wisely not pursued the writ petition as to. the land measuring 121 acres found in excess of the basic allotment as he has been pointed out that the Collector was not empowered to allot the State, land to the extent of 121 acres as he did.

3. So far as 63 Kanals of land is concerned it has been shown that the petitioner was regularly allotted the land under the ejected tenants scheme and the petitioner had been cultivating and complying with the terms and conditions of the lease on which he had been granted the proprietary rights towards which lie paid the dues, whereafter it was expressed as sold to the petitioner through the registered conveyance dated 31‑5‑1980.

4. The direction by the respondent to the Deputy Commissioner/ Collector to again enquire into the matter appertaining to 63 Kanals appears to be in excess of the jurisdiction as it amounts to an interference without any justification with a legally settled transaction, therefore, in accepting this writ petition the same is declared as without lawful authority and of no legal effect, hence is set aside. In the circumstances there is no order as to costs.

H.B.T Petition accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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