Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
1988 M L D 799
[Board of Revenue Punjab]
Before Asad Ali Shah, Member (Colonies),
SHER MUHAMMAD and others Petitioners
versus
THE STATE through Collector, Mianwali and others Respondents
R.O.Rs. Nos. 1758; 1759, 2085, 2084, 2082, 2.083, 1848, 1849, 1850, 1865, 1955, 1.791, 2312, 1864, 1867, 2167 and 1909 of 1986, decided on 25th March, 1987.
West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967) --
-- S. 164 Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab: Act (V of 1912), S.10 State land Fifteen years" Lease Scheme Petitioners" allotments cancelled after inquiry Non observance of rules of natural justice in enquiry lore proceedings Effect Cancellation of petitioners" lease was effected on the ground that the order whereby such land was allotted to petitioners was fakePetitioners had not been given full .chance to lead evidence in their defence before the Enquiry Officer To ascertain eligibility of petitioners to obtain lease, fair opportunity to produce evidence in support of their claim would be necessary Case was remanded to Collector for decision afresh in accordance with directions of Board of Revenue.
Malik Noor Muhammad Awan, Ghulam Hussain Mack, Malik Talib Hussain Awan, Rao Humid Mukhtar Khan, Malik Yousaf Farooq and Ch. Khurshid Alam for Petitioners.
These are seventeen revision petitions against the order of Additional Commissioner (Revenue) Sargodha, dated 23 6 1986, 26 2 1986, 30 6 1986 and 20 7 1986, whereby he dismissed the appeals of the petitioners against the order of A.C./Collector, Mianwali, dated 13 4 1986, 20 4 1986, 24 4 1986 and 27 4 1986. The latter had cancelled the allotments of the petitioners on the ground that these had been obtained on forged signatures of the A.C./Collector.
2. All the above cases are being decided by this single order as the same point is involved.
3. Facts are that Government in the year 1971 formulated a scheme to lease out available State land under Fifteen years Lease Scheme to land less tenants and self cultivating owners holding less than 4 acres of land. The basic condition of eligibility was that the person must have been a tenant during Kharif 1969 to Kharif 1970. After the allotments, complaints were received that ineligible persons had also benefited. The A.C./Collector, Mianwali carried out a survey and submitted his report to the D.C. on 9 7 1975 and ultimately Commissioner, Sargodha vide letter No.P/69(11) 1944/CA, dated 8 Cr1977 allowed the Deputy Commissioner, Mianwali to review the allotments. Consequently, the Deputy Commissioner vide his order dated 23 10 1976 cancelled a number of allotments including those of the petitioners. The petitioners filed appeals before the Additional Commissioner (Cons.), who vide his order dated 19 12 1977 accepted the same on the ground that only the A.C. /Collector could review the order and
not the D.C./Collector. A revision petition before Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue was filed and he vide his order dated 29 5 1983 upheld the order of the additional Commissioner and also ordered that the allotments made after 31 51971 (the target date) be cancelled. He further directed that such allotments therein the possession had been taken over after cancellation may not be restored. The case was accordingly remanded to the .A.C /Collector.. Mianwali for further action.
4. According to the entries in the record, the petitioners were shown to be lessees of following State lands: .
| | | | | | |
| 1 | Sher Muhammad | Rect. No. 39/3/1,4/1,5/1,6. Rect No. 40/5/1,6. Rect. No. 41/5, Rect. No.54/1 to 5. | 25/D.B. 27-4-1986 | 27-4-1986 | 26-6-1988 |
| 2. | Fateh Muhammad | Rect No. 40/1, to 4,7 to 10. Rect. No. 41/1 to 4 Min | do | do | do |
| 3. | Bashir Ahmad | Rect. No. 74/3/1,4 to 8 Rect No. 75/1 to 8, Rect. No. 76/4,5. | do | do | do |
| 4. | Wali Ahmad | Rect. No. 73/1,2,6 to 10, rect. No. 74/1,2,3/2,9,10, Rect. No. 52/7, 8,11. | do | do | do |
| 5. | Abdul Aziz | Rect. No. 80/1 to 10, Rect. No. 81/8 to 10. | -do- | 27-4-1986 | do |
| 6. | Mst. Hameedan | Rect.No.53/1 to 10,Rect.No. 81/8 to 10. | do | 24-4-1986 | do |
| 7. | Ali Sher | Rect. No. 13/4,5,6 Rect. No. 14/6, Rect.No. 28/1,2. | 29/DM | 20-4-1986 | do |
| 8. | Akbar | Rect. No. 1/3 to 7, Rect.No.2/5, Rect No.5/1,2,9,10, Rect. No.6/1 to 6. | do | do | do |
| 9. | Jamala | Rect.No.21/2/2,304,5 Rect. No. 76/8 to 10, Rect. No. 78/2,9. | do | do | do |
| 10. | Muhammad Zaman | Rect. No. 4/2 to 4, 5/1,7/1,8, Rect No. 6/7 to 10. | -do- | -do- | do |
| 11. | Abdul Sattar | Rect. No. 54/6 to 21 D.B 49 10,Rect. No. 55/1,3 50 | do | 13-4-1986 | 30-6-1986 |
| 12. | Sultan | Rect. No. 14/1 to 5, 6/1,6/2,7 to 10. | 21/DB | 13-4-1986 | 23-6-1986 |
| 13. | Allah Yar | No.18/3 to 8 | do | do | 30-6-1986 |
| 14. | Muhammad Amir | Rect. No. 29/7, Rect.No.33/1 to 12, Rect No.34/3, 4/1 | 30-4-1986 | ||
| 15. | Muhammad Nawaz | Rect.No.104/5 to 10, Rect. No. 107/1,2,9,10 to 5, Rect. No. 108/1,2,9,10. | do | do | do |
| 16. | Muhammad Sadiq | Rect.No.79/2,3,9 ,10 Rect. No. 103/5 to 10, Rect. No. 104/1,4. | do | do | 20-7-1986 |
| 17. | Muhammad Hassan | Rect.No.43/1 to 7 11, Rect. No. 69/2 to 5, Rect. No. 70/7,8. | do | do | -do- |
5. the A.C./Collector on the remand of the case, heard the petitioners, examined the record and found that according to the enquiry made by his predecessor the petitioners were not held to be tenants during Kharif 1969 to Kharif 1970 though their names were included in the list of scheduled tenants. 40 The record i.e. copes of Khasra Girdawri for the allotment period (Kharif 1969 to Kharif 1970) produced by the petitioners did not correspond to the actual entries in the Khasra Girdawari or with the entries in Roznamcha Waqiati. He further observed that Mian Abdus Samad, A.C./Collector, who was supposed to have made the allotments had stated before the D.C. that signatures on the allotment file were forged and the documents had been prepared afterwards. The 14 A.C./Collector found that warrants issued for the possession of the land specified different areas than those mentioned in the allotment file of the petitioners. He, therefore, cancelled the allotments and directed the Tehsildar to take over the possession of the land alongwith standing crops and prepare Tawan files against the petitioners from 1971 onwards.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners at length. It was argued that although the petitioners were leased out the lands under 15 years" Lease Scheme on 25 5 1971 and were duly given possession as endorsed by reports in the Roznamcha Waqiati of the Patwari, no opportunity was provided to the petitioners to prove their case. It was emphasized that the allotting authority (Mr. Samad) had not categorically denied his signatures but had only stated that although the style of signatures resembled his own, but the signatures were not his. This made the case disputed and a thorough enquiry should have been undertaken, which was never held.
7. I have considered the arguments, perused the record of the case and the record of the Patwari. The allotment file and enquiry report produced by the Colony Clerk has also been perused. One of the main grounds on which the allotments of the petitioners have been cancelled is the forged signatures of the then A.C./Collector (Mian Abdul Samad) who had allegedly stated before the. D.C./Collector that his signatures were forged. I have perused the enquiry file wherein the D.C./Collector had recorded his findings. It appears that no formal statement or written statement of Mian Abdul Samad was recorded by the D.C. although attendance of the officer is mentioned in the order sheet entry dated 2310 1977. However, in the detailed order of that date by the D.C./Collector it has been mentioned that Mian Abdul Samad after verifying the record had disowned his signatures and had pointed out that all the papers pertaining to the allotments were forged and he had never signed these. The petitioners had also admitted before the A.C./Collector during enquiry that their names were never drawn in the lottery proceedings as required by instructions and they were allotted the lands/subsequently. The Khasra Girdawri entries also do not record them as cultivating any land as tenants during the three crucial harvests from Kharif 1969. to Kharif 1970. It was then claimed that there were many other cases in which the same allegation of forged signatures had been made out but the resumed allotments were restored.
8. I feel that the petitioners have not been given full chance to lead their defence before the A.C./Collector in the light of order of my predecessor. It is, therefore, fair that an opportunity is provided to the parties to produce evidence so that the eligibility of the petitioners to obtain lease, and other factors are decided in a detailed order. The enquiry should be held by A.C./Collector under the supervision (sic). In the meantime if the petitioners are still in possession of land they may continue provided market rent of the land actually in their possession is paid by them. This possession which will be of on year to year basis will be specifically subject to findings of the enquiry and will not confirm any right for further lease or other benefits like proprietary rights etc. in case the matter is decided against them.
A.A./272/R Petitions accepted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer