Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. 26 of 1961‑62, decided on 31st January 1962, District Montgomery.

----

----para. 421‑Choice of colonists is to be considered in allotment of shop sites.

Muhammad Azram has filed this appeal against Additional Commissioner, Multan's order dated 29‑11‑1961, whereby Collector, Pakpattan's order dated 27‑9‑1961, allotting shop site No. 52 in Chak No. 90/E.B., in favour of the appellant, was set aside. I shall treat this as a revision.

The Collector, Pakpattan, allotted shop site No. 52 in favour of Muhammad Azram as he was recommended by the Naib -Tahsildar as well as by the Chairman of the Union Council. No recommendation was made in favour of Muhammad Aslam ; Muhammad Aslam went in appeal and the Additional Commis sioner held both of them as ineligible for the reasons that they are not mueens and the shop site is meant for mueens. Moreover, Muhammad Azram, was held by the Additional Commissioner to be a minor. He, therefore, remanded the case back to the Collector for fresh allotment of the site to a deserv ing person. It is from this remand order that Muhammad Azram's appeal was filed to the Board of Revenue.

The petitioner's contentions are:

(i) that the Additional Commissioner has failed to take note of paragraph 421 of the Colony Manual which prescribes that the choice of the colonists is to be considered in the allotment of shop sites ;

(ii) that he has been recommended by the Chairman of the Union Council and has the support of a majority of the abadkars ;

(iii) that he is not a minor. His age is 19 years ; and

(iv) that his right foot is disabled in consequence of which he is not able to follow agricultural pursuits and has chosen business as his calling:

The above are very convincing arguments. It is a pity that the Additional Commissioner did not advert to paragraph 421 of the Colony Manual, which governs the allotment of shop sites, nor has he quoted any authority that a shop in the locality of mueens can only be granted to mueens. In actual fact the only bar known was against agriculturists who were debarred from allotment of shop sites in colony Chaks thirty years ago. This condition was, however, removed in 1933, vide Notification No. 837‑C, dated 1‑3‑1933. It is to be regretted that despite the fact that I have, time and again been insisting in my appellate and revisional orders that revenue officers below must refer to the law or the policy directives in order not to pass wrong orders, this advice is being ignored and officers are passing wrong orders to the harassment of petty peasants by noting on their publication or arbitrary notions contrary to specific provisions of the law or directives of the Board of Revenue. This attitude must be brought to an end, as it has no justification and burdens the unfortunate people with heavy costs.

I, therefore, find that there was no justification whatsoever, for the Additional Commissioner's order, which is hereby set aside and the Collector's allotment in favour of Muhammad Azram petitioner restored.

K. M. A. Revision accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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