Find a Lawyer

Intra-Court Appeal No.256 of 1983, heard on 15th March, 1987.

---Ss.9(3) & 15--Disposal of surrendered land--Mode of--Disposal of surrendered land under S.15, held, could rely take place when surrendered land vested in Government--Such land would vest in Government only when order resuming same attained finality under the Act--Surrendered land in dispute having finality been restored to owners thereof, appellants, even if sitting tenants of such land, would riot have any locus standi to make any grievance in that respect.

Sheikh Amir-ud-din v. Claims Commissioner, Pakistan, Lahore and others P L D 1968 S C 165 ref.

Ch. A. Rashid Gujjar for Appellant.

Malik Saeed Hassan for Respondents Nos.l to 4.

Nemo for Respondent No-5.

Date of hearing: 15th March, 1987.

-The land in dispute originally belonged to Haji Muhammad Hayat since deceased (represented by, his legal representatives who are respondents No.2,3 and 4), who sold the same to Mst. Khawar Naheed, respondent No.1. On account of some dispute having arisen, the matter was taken to the Civil Court which passed a decree on 2-5-1975 in favour of Mst. Khawar Nahged, respondent No.1, in pursuance of which the Patwari entered the mutation regarding this sale in September, 1975, which however, was not sanctioned by the Revenue Authorities before the crucial date i.e. 4-11-1977.

2. On the promulgation of Land Reforms Act, 1977, Haji Muhammad Hayat, filed a declaration as required under the said Act, in which he showed the said land having been sold to respondent No.1. The Deputy Land Commissioner vide his order, dated 29-10-1977 declared the alienation as void, for the reason that the mutation was not sanctioned prior to the crucial date and as a consequence thereof he ordered that the area involved be treated to be the holding of the declarant for the purposes of Land Reforms Act, 1977 and consequent thereupon he ordered for the resumption of the excess land in favour of the Land Commissioner, which was to the extent of 5663 P.I.Us. This order was challenged in appeal by Haji Muhammad Hayat, which was dismissed by the Land Commissioner by order, dated 21-5-1978. A revision petition filed by Haji Muhammad Hayat before the Additional Chief Land Commissioner met the same fate, vide order, dated 25-10-1978. Haji Muhammad Hayat deceased did not take the matter further. However, the vendees who were not joined in the said proceedings filed W.P.No.5738178 titled "Riaz Hussain etc. v. D.L.C. Sargodha" in this Court, which was decided and disposed of on 18-2-1979 and the petitioners therein were directed to seek their remedy by making representation before the concerned Land Commission Authorities regarding their grievances. In pursuance of this observation, the vendees filed an application before the Additional Chief Land Commissioner Punjab who by his order, dated 29-5-1980 directed the said applicant/vendees to make the representation before the Land Commissioner. As a result of that, a petition was moved by the vendees before the Land Commission questioning the legality of resumption of excess area. In these proceedings initiated by the vendees, the appellants made an application under section 151 C.P.C. to be impleaded as respondents, alleging that they being sitting tenants of the land and as a consequence of resumption of land by the Deputy Land Commissioner they had acquired a right to be given that land under the said Act. This application was, however, rejected by the land Commissioner and on merits the application of the vendees was accepted by order, dated 21-7-1983 and the order of Deputy Land Commissioner, Sargodha, dated 29-11--1977 and subsequent orders were set aside and the sale made by Haji Muhammad Hayat in favour of .the vendees was held to be valid, as alienations themselves took place long before the crucial date and non-sanctioning of the mutation was not of any consequence.

3. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the Land Commissioner rejecting their application to be impleaded as respondents, the appellants filed Writ Petition No.4562 of 1983 in this Court which was dismissed in limine by a learned single Judge by order, dated 30-10-1983, against which the present appeal has been preferred.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and examine the available record. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that under section 15 of the Laced Reforms Act. 1977, the appellants who were admittedly sitting tenants of the land which was the subject-matter of resumption had acquired a valuable right of securing its allotment in their favour, therefore, in proceedings before the Land Commission Authorities against the resumption of land, the appellants were entitled to be heard before any order was passed. According to the learned counsel, in such circumstances the appellants were the persons who were likely to be adversely affected. In support of his argument the learned counsel has relied upon the judgment reported as Sheikh Amir-ud-Din v. Claims Commissioner, Pakistan, Lahore and others P L D 1968 S C 165.

5. The contention of the learned counsel has not impressed us as the same is without any substance, inasmuch as the disposal of surrendered land under section 15 of the Land Reforms Act, car, only take place when the land vests in the Government under the Act. It may be pointed out that under section 9(3) of the said Act it has been provided that any land under litigation which is in excess of the entitlement of a person under the said Act, shall vest in the Government subject to the final adjudication of the rights of the litigants. In this view of the matter, the land did vest in the Government merely on the passing of the order by the Deputy Land Commissioner on 29-10-1977 resuming the land, but on the other hand it shall vest in the Government after the order resuming the land attains finality under the Act, since the very resumption is subject to challenge before higher authorities under the Act, which may be lodged by a declarant or any person claiming through him. In such proceedings the appellants could not be impleaded as respondents and did not have any right to be heard. The right if any, under section 15 of the Act had to accrue only after the resumption of land becomes final. That eventuality having not arisen and the land having been restored to the owners, therefore, the appellants did not have any locus standi to make any grievance. The case cited by the learned counsel for the appellants has no relevancy to this case. In the reported case the contest was between the different applicants for allotment of an evacuee property and in these circumstances it was held that before any order was passed on the application of one regarding the determination of his entitlement the others were entitled to be heard.

For the foregoing reasons, this appeal has no force. It is hereby dismissed, but with no order as to costs.

H. B. T./M-153/L Appeal 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.