Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition No. 1109 of 1980, decided on 16th November,1985.

(On appeal from the judgment, dated 1-7-1980 of the Lahore High Court in Writ Petition No. 316 of 1978)

---Art. 185(3)--Ejected Tenant Scheme, 1960--High Court for valid and cogent reasons, dismissing petitioner's writ petition, against order of authorities resuming land in question instead of transferring same to him under Ejected Tenant Scheme, 1960--Impugned order not suffering from any legal infirmity--Leave to appeal refused.

A.R. Sheikh, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Masud Akhtar, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Petitioner.

Sh. Maqbool Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbool Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 16th November, 1985.

The petitioner was allotted some land under the Ejected Tenants Scheme, on 24-3-1952 in village Rakh Dherman in the District Sargodha which was exchanged by orders of the Government, dated 24-1-1961 for the area in dispute, which measures 65 Kanals 5 Marlas comprising Square No. 97, Killa Nos. 2, 3/1, 4/1, Square No. 99, Killa Nos. 9, 10, 11, 20, 21 and 22.

Sometimes in May 1967, the petitioner applied for grant of proprietary rights in the above area under the Ejected Tenants Scheme, dated 8-10-1960. However, the Collector, instead of transferring proprietary rights to the petitioner, resumed the area in question itself on the ground that it was situate within ten miles of the outer limits of the Sargodha Municipal Committee, a First Class Municipality. The petitioner's appeal to the Collector and the revision to the Board of Revenue against the said decision failed. He then approached the civil Court for redress. His suit was, however, dismissed, as also his appeal preferred before the District Judge. He then moved the Lahore High Court by a revision petition. However, when the revision petition came up for hearing, the petitioner, instead of pursuing it, surprisingly decided to withdraw it and moved a writ petition instead. Herein, he prayed for setting aside the order of the District Judge as well as the revenue authorities. The said writ petition was dismissed for a variety of reasons, which have force. This petition has now been filed seeking, leave to appeal in this Court.

Before us, the correctness of the decision of the High Court dismissing the writ petition has not seriously been challenged. The contention which was really stressed was that in the meanwhile the Government had issued two Policy Letters, in June, 1970 and December, 1972 manifesting its intention not to uproot persons from the land allotted to them under the provisions of Colonization of Government Lands Act in the exemption belt, by providing alternative accommodation to them. The circumstance that the exemption belt had been reduced from 10 to 5 in the First Class Municipality was a further manifestation of this intention as the anomatly resulting from the existence of different standards under different schemes, which were working hardship on the tenants /allottees in different areas, was sought to be harmonized thereby. Hence, the petitioner should have, at least, been allowed alternative accommodation before he was uprooted from the land given to him as long ago as 24-1-1961.

This humanitarian aspect of the case, no doubt, deserves consideration. However, this cannot be done by us but only by the Provincial Government authorities. The petitioner may, if so advised, approach the authorities concerned for relief in the matter.

Since, however, no error exists in the order of the High Court impugned before us, this petition must fail and, subject to the above observations, stands dismissed.

M. Y. H. Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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