Find a Lawyer

R.O.R NO.22950F 1982, DECIDED ON 24^TH APRIL 1983.

--S. 164--Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912), Ss. 10 & 24--Proprietary right--Claim by temporary lease holder--Claim for proprietary rights rejected on basis of entries in Khasra Girdawari by revenue functionaries--Board of Revenue in revisional jurisdiction found Girdawari to have been recorded incorrectly against interest of petitioner and setting aside order based on such incorrect entries, allowed proprietary rights to petitioner.

Mian Mahboob Alam for Petitioner.

This is 'a revision petition against the order of the Commissioner Sargodha, dated 30-5-1982 whereby he dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and upheld the order of Assistant Commissioner/ Collector, Jaranwala, dated 24-12-1981 vide which he had allowed the proprietary rights over 4 Kanals 9 Marlas of land to the petitioner but rejected the claim over 68 Kanals 18 Marlas of land as the petitioner had not been in continuous self-cultivating possession of the land since before Kharif 1977 and resumed this much area in favour of State.

2. The facts of the case are that Sqr. Nos. 23/12/2 to 15/2, 16, 17/1, 17/2, 18, 19/1, 23 to 25 measuring 73 Kanals 7 Marlas situated in Chak No.585/G.B. was under the allotment of the petitioner under 5 years Lease Scheme. He applied for the grant of proprietary rights. The Assistant Commissioner/ Collector, observed that the petitioner was owner of 26 Kanals 13 Marlas of land and that he was self-cultivator of only Sqr. No.23/12/2 measuring 4 Kanals 9 Marlas since Kharif 1977. He, therefore, vide his order, dated 23-12-1981 allowed the proprietary rights of this area only and resumed Sqr. No.23/13/2 to 1512, 16, 17/1, 17/2, 18, 1911, 23 to 25 measuring 68 Kanals 18 Marlas from him as it was not self-cultivated by him since before Kharif 1977. Aggrieved by this order the petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner Sargodha who observed that some of the disputed land was under self-cultivation of the petitioner during the period from Kharif 1975 to Rabi 1978 while the other was cultivated through tenants. However, during Kharif 1978 and Rabi 1979 the cultivation of the petitioner was recorded joint with one Azam son of Bashir. The Commissioner, therefore, rejected the appeal but however observed that if the petitioner could obtain the correction of the entry in the Khasra Girdawari he can reagitate for the grant of proprietary rights. Hence, this revision petition.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length and gone through the grounds of revision. The learned counsel contended that the petitioner had been self-cultivating the land since its lease. He argued that the Patwari of the circle incorrectly recorded the Girdawari in favour of Muhammad, Shaman and Shera sons of Sadiq in Kharif 1976, Rabi 1977, Kharif 1977, Rabi, 1978 some of the field number out of his allotment, whereas after that the Girdawari was made in favour of the petitioner. He contended that these persons murdered Bashir Ahmad and Qutba, the real brothers of the petitioner. He alleged that Ahmad, Jaffar and Akram the sons of Sadiq and Ashraf son of Muhammad son of Sadiq had been sentenced to 25 years' imprisonment in this murder case. He argued that how it was possible that the real brothers of the murderers and their near relatives could be allowed by the petitioner to cultivate the land as tenants. He argued ,14 that Azam was his nephew of the age of 6 years, the entry made in his favour was absolutely wrong, as he could not cultivate the land but it was cultivated by the petitioner. He argued that the petitioner was still in possession of land and that the impugned order be set aside. The Patwari stated that. the petitioner was in self-cultivating possession of the disputed land since Kharif 1976 and had been recorded as self-cultivation of Sqr. Nos. 23/12/2, 13/2, 14/2, 15/2, 16, 17/1, 17/2, 18 19/1, 23, 24, 25 from before Kharif 1975 to Rabi 1979 and the cultivation in his favour for Sqr. Nos. 23/12/2, 14/2, 17/1, 15/2 min, 17/2, 24, 25 remained continuous from Kharif 1975 todate.

4. I have considered the arguments and perused the record of the case. The Commissioner in his impugned orders has observed that the cultivation during Kharif 1978 and Rabi 1979 was recorded joint with Azam. He observed that the petitioner can re-agitate the matter after getting the entries of Khasra Girdawari corrected in his favour. The circumstances of the case show that incorrect Girdawari was recorded by the Patwari against the interest of the petitioner. 1, therefore, set aside the impugned order and allow the proprietary rights to the extent of 12i Acres after deducting his holding. The revision is thus allowed.

A.A. Revision allowed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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