Find a Lawyer

ROR No.3517 of 1984, decided on 11th August, 1985.

‑‑‑S. 10‑‑West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967), S. 164‑‑Land leased out under 15 years' Lease Scheme‑‑Grant of proprietary rights of such land to petitioner, refused on ground that land was situated within prohibited zone of Municipal Committee‑‑Colonization Officer, held, was required to deal with adjustment of cases only and had no authority to allow proprietary rights of leased land under different schemes‑‑Case was remanded by Board of Revenue with direction that Collector should examine whether, (1) petitioner was lessee of disputed land and if there was no objection to his lease; (ii) whether petitioner had applied in time fulfilling all the conditions of lease and was eligible to obtain proprietary rights under 15 years Lease Scheme, and (iii) whether land was within or outside the prohibited zone.

Malik Talib Hussain for Petitioner.

This is a revision petition against the order of Commissioner, Sargodha, dated 23‑9‑1984 whereby he rejected the appeal of the petitioner against the order of Extra‑Assistant Colonization Officer/ Collector, Jauharabad, dated 10‑8‑1983 vide which he rejected the application of the petitioner for the grant of proprietary rights of land leased out to him in Rect. No.102 in Chak No.59/MB under 15 Years Lease Scheme on the ground that the land was within the prohibited Zone of Municipal Committee, Khushab.

2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner applied for proprietary rights‑of the land leased out to him on 14‑3‑1971 under 15 years Lease Scheme in Chak No.59/MB. The case was processed under Notification dated 3‑9‑1979 and the Extra‑Assistant Colonization Officer vide his order dated 24‑3‑1980 declared him eligible to obtain proprietary rights as the distance of the disputed Chak was reported to be 5 miles outside the outer limits of Municipal Committee, Khushab. The Settlement Officer vide his order dated 24‑4‑1981 had confirmed the recommendation of the Extra‑Assistant Colonization Officer. The Extra‑Assistant Colonization Officer summoned the petitioner for the deposit of instalments and it came to his notice that the land was within one mile from the outer limits of Municipal Committee, Khushab. The Extra‑Assistant Colonization Officer moved the Settlement Officer to review his order, dated 20‑4‑1981. The Settlement Officer vide his order dated 8‑9‑1981 reviewed and cancelled the previous order but allowed the petitioner to continue his lease till the expiry of lease period. The petitioner on 4‑3‑1982 made application to the Extra Assistant Colonization Officer to allow him to deposit the price of land and made a reference to the case of Qazi Muhammad , Zarif to whom proprietary rights were allowed. The Extra‑Assistant Colonization Officer observed that allotment to Qazi Muhammad Zarif was made under the order of the Board of Revenue and when Board of Revenue was appraised of the situation it did not take action and intimated vide Memo No.2282‑82/2112‑Th. V, dated 23‑10‑1982 that since the allotment was made under the order of Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue, dated 12‑2‑1981 the compliance of order be made. He did not follow the reference made by the petitioner and rejected his application, Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner filed appeal but it was rejected by the Commissioner. Hence this revision petition.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length and gone through the grounds of revision. He contended that Extra‑Assistant Colonization Officer/ Collector on 24‑3‑1980 had declared the petitioner eligible to obtain proprietary rights and directed him to deposit the price of land. He argued that the incoming Extra Assistant Colonization Officer had no jurisdiction to review the order of his, predecessor without obtaining approval from the Commissioner. He contended that the Extra‑Assistant Colonization Officer/ Collector had erred in law in reviewing the order. He argued that the land was outside the prohibited zone and in this Chak several others were allowed proprietary rights. He urged that the impugned order be set aside.

4. I have considered the arguments and perused the record of the case. The Extra‑Assistant Colonization Officer has got no authority to allow proprietary rights of the leased land under different Schemes. The Extra‑Assistant Colonization Officer has to deal with the adjustment cases only. The case is remanded to the Assistant Commissioner/ Collector with the direction that he should examine whether the petitioner was lessee of the disputed land and if there was no objection to his lease and whether he had applied in time and fulfilled the conditions of lease and was eligible to obtain proprietary rights under) the Scheme. What were the limits of the prohibited zone at the time of notification dated 3‑9‑1979 and whether at that time the land was) within or outside the prohibited zone After examining these issues the case be decided afresh. The impugned orders are set aside.

A. A./225/R Case remanded.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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