1994 CLC 484 (PLP)

Date of hearing: 7th May, 1991. This Constitutional petition is directed against the order of the Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue, Punjab, dated 6‑6‑1972, whereby he had rejected the petitioner's revision petition against the dismissal of his appeal by the Additional Commissioner in the matter of allotment of the land in dispute.

2. Facts necessary for the disposal of this petition, briefly stated, are that State‑land measuring 90 Kanals and 4 Marlas comprising Killas No.23 to 25 of Square No.63, Killas No.16/1, 16/2, 23 to 25 of Square No.64 and Killas Nos.ll/1, 12/1, 13/1, 14/1, and 15/1 of Square No.65 was temporarily allotted to the petitioner by order of the Collector, Sheikhupura, dated 6‑6‑1958 which fact was entered in `roznamcha waqiati' dated 2‑9‑1958 (Annex `A'). Petitioner took over possession of the said land on 2nd September 1958.

3. On 31‑3‑1971, Collector, Sheikhupura, allotted 12 acres 6 Kanals and 18 Marlas land to Muhammad Siddiq, respondent herein, under the Gujranwala Cantonment Affectees Rehabilitation Scheme. The area allotted to the respondent included Khasra Nos. 16, 17, 23, 24 and 25 of square No.44/64 and Killas Nos.il/1, 12/1, 13/1, 14/1 and 15/1 of Square No.69/65 of the petitioner's allotment. Order of the Collector dated 31‑3‑1971 was admittedly passed at the back of and without notice to the petitioner who, on coming to know of it, challenged it in an appeal before the Commissioner. Petitioner's grievance in the appeal was that the land in dispute was allotted to him in lieu of his `darya burd' land in village Parinda, Tehsil Nankana, District Sheikhupura, and, therefore, it was not available for allotment under the Scheme for the affectees of Gujranwala Cantonment. Petitioner also made a claim in his appeal that he was in self‑cultivating possession of the land in dispute ever since his allotment to him and he was, therefore, entitled to the grant of proprietary rights therein. Further grievance of the petitioner, of course, was that the impugned order was passed by the Collector without notice to him.

4. Additional Commissioner, who heard the petitioner's appeal, observed that although there existed an entry in the `roznamcha' dated 2‑9‑1958 to the effect that the land was temporarily allotted to the petitioner but this entry did not substantiate the petitioner's contention that the land in dispute was allotted to him in lieu of `darya burd' land. Additional Commissioner further noted that a few stray entries were made in `roznamcha' and Jamabandi for the year 1961‑62 showing that the petitioner held the land `baseegha darya burdi' but these entries were not supported by the Colony Office. It was, therefore, held by the Additional Commissioner that the petitioner was "rightly declared as unauthorised occupant of the land. No notice was therefore necessary for unauthorised occupant of this land." It was also noted by the Additional Commissioner that the petitioner failed to produce any document to show that he had paid the rent at any time during all these years. Appeal of the petitioner was accordingly rejected by the Additional Commissioner by his order dated 20‑4‑1972. He, however, advised the petitioner "to file an application for the allotment of land under the River Action Scheme of 1970" as the petitioner had produced before him a copy of Jamabandi for the year 1966‑67 to show that he was owner of some land which was classified as `ghair mumkin raet'.

5. Feeling aggrieved with the aforementioned order, petitioner took the matter in revision before the learned Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue, who, as stated above, dismissed the revision petition by a short order dated 6th June 1972 impugned herein.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also examined the documents placed on the present file. It is true that the petitioner has not produced copy of the order of the Collector whereby the allotment was allegedly made in his favour in 1958. It was, however, clearly mentioned in `roznamcha waqiati' (Annex `A') that the land in dispute was temporarily allotted to the petitioner by order of the Collector dated 6‑6‑1958. The entry in `roznamcha waqiati', no doubt, does not show that the land in dispute was allotted to the petitioner in lieu of his `darya burd' land but in the Jamabandis for the years 1961‑62 and 1962‑63 (Annexures `B' and `C', respectively) and copy of Khasra Girdawari from Kharif 1963 to Rabi 1967 (Annex `D') the petitioner was shown as `ghair morusi baseegha darya burdi'. Copy of Jamabandi for the year 1966‑67 (Annex `F'), which the petitioner had also produced before the Additional Commissioner, also shows that he owned some land classified as in Village Parinda, Tehsil Nankana. All these documents, unless rebutted in a proper enquiry, prima facie, lend some support to the petitioner's contention that the land in dispute was allotted to him, though temporarily, in lieu of his. `darya burdi' land.‑ Now, the question whether the land in dispute was allotted to the petitioner by order of the Collector dated 6‑6‑1959, which was referred to in the `roznamcha waqiati' (Annex `A'), and Whether the allotment, if any, was made in lieu of petitioner's `darya burd' land, can only be determined in a proper enquiry and after examination of the relevant record, which inquiry cannot be undertaken in these proceedings. Admittedly, no such inquiry was held at appropriate level before the Collector passed the impugned order allotting the land in dispute to the respondent. Both the learned counsel also agree that such an inquiry is eminently warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly in view of the aforenoted entries in the Revenue Record and the case be, therefore, remanded to the Collector (Colonies), Sheikhupura, for the purpose' of holding the necessary inquiry.

7. In view of what has been said above, writ petition is allowed and the case is remanded to the Collector (Colonies), Sheikhupura, with a direction that he will hold a proper inquiry and after examining the relevant record and hearing both the parties, record his finding on the question whether the land in dispute was allotted to the petitioner by order of the Collector dated 6th June 1958 and, if so, whether the allotment was made in lieu of petitioner's `darya burd' land and then pass appropriate orders afresh. Since the dispute between the parties is hanging fire for the last more than two decades, Collector shall finally decide the matter remanded to him within a period of three months. There will be no order as to costs. A.A./A‑1356/L. Case remanded.