1994 PLP 718 (MLD)

This second appeal was directed against the judgment and decree dated 11th December, 1983, of the learned Additional District Judge, Toba Tek Singh, whereby accepting the appeal of the respondent-plaintiff his suit was decreed. The main points urged in this second appeal are that the learned appellate Court was not justified in setting aside the finding recorded by the learned trial Court and that the learned trial Judge was right in holding that application Exh.Pl cannot be treated as one for the acquisition of proprietary rights and that in any case the plaintiff was not competent to submit the application for acquisition of proprietary rights because he was not by that time the appointed Lambardar in place of his grandfather. Learned counsel argued that the plaintiff was appointed Lambardar on 18-10-1952 and by then the period of one year prescribed by the letter dated 22nd May, 1951, had expired.

2. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the impugned judgments and the record of the suit I find that the conclusions recorded by the learned Additional District Judge are well founded. These conclusions are based on material available on record. Neither any misreading nor any non-reading of any material piece of evidence could be pointed out. It is common ground that the Provincial Government in its letter dated 22nd May, 1951 decided to grant proprietary rights to hereditary Lambardars at the rate of Rs.150 per acre. The Government further decided that option should be exercised within one year. It is also not disputed that option was allowed to be exercised again in the year 1956 as the Government again decided on 8-8-1956 to grant proprietary rights to such Lambardars and the concerned Lambardars were required to avail of that concession within one year. The application, Exh.Pl, as is apparent from its contents was submitted during the pendency of the appointment of the heir of the deceased Lambardar. Noor Din, the appointed Lambardar, who was grandfather of the respondent, had died in 1951. When proceedings for appointment were pending the application Exh.Pl was submitted requesting time for depositing the amount for the sale of proprietary rights till decision of the Lambardari case. In these circumstances this application sufficiently proves the exercise of choice within the prescribed period. Again Punjab Government's letter, dated 24-8-1953 shows that the case of Muhammad Shafi, plaintiff, for grant of proprietary rights was retained by the Government of the Punjab for further consideration. Then the Government was moved in 1953 by the District Collector and proprietary rights were granted to some Lambardars while the case of the remaining Lambardars was under action. This would show that the plaintiff had exercised the choice and in view of the exercise of the choice firstly in the year 1952 within the prescribed time and later in the year 1953, it was not proper for the Collector to resume the land vide order dated 13th November, 1970, on the ground of non-exercise of option. The narration of facts contained in the impugned judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, which position was not controverted before me during, arguments, would show that the Colony Collector as well as the officers above him, failed to examine the case of the plaintiff in its true perspective: The view taken by them was not only. unwarranted but was too technical. The rights which came to vest in the plaintiff cannot be defeated by taking such a hypertechnical view. I, therefore, agree with the conclusions recorded by the learned Additional District Judge, This appeal is, therefore, without merit and is dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs. H.B.T./P-58/L Appeal dismissed.