1992 PLP 561 (CLC)

‑‑‑‑S.10‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑‑Allotment of land to petitioner under Pedigree Livestock Breeding Scheme, 1965‑‑‑Lease deed was executed and possession was delivered to petitioner‑‑‑Cancellation of allotment‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Land in question, was allotted to petitioner being a Lambardar of the village in 1.965, and since then he had been in cultivating possession thereof‑‑‑Complaint was lodged with Collector that petitioner obtained allotment of land by committing fraud, and forgery and on basis of such complaint his allotment was cancelled‑‑‑Law Officer appearing on behalf of Department conceding that petitioner was not among the accused charged with fraud and forgery and thus establishing that he was not party to such criminal acts‑‑‑No other person except petitioner claimed land in question‑‑ Petitioner being in cultivating possession of the land since the date of its allotment in his favour, Collector should have reappraised evidence on record‑‑‑Order of cancellation of petitioner's allotment was declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect‑‑‑Case was remanded to Collector for decision afresh on merits. Mirza Hafiz‑ur‑Rehman for Petitioner. Rana M. Arshad Khan and Muhammad Akhtar Shabbir, Addl. A.‑G. for Respondents. Date of hearing: 19th May, 1991. A piece of land measuring 12‑1/2 acres was allotted in favour of Muhammad Bakhsh, petitioner as Lambardar of Chak No. 113/S.B., District Sargodha by the Board of Revenue on 7‑5‑1965. Accordingly, physical possession of the land was given to the petitioner. Annexure `B' is the order of the learned Deputy Commissioner, Sargodha whereby deficiency in allotment of land to the petitioner was made up. The allotment of land was made to the petitioner under the scheme known as pedigree Livestock Breeding Scheme, 1965. Possession of the petitioner was duly incorporated in the revenue record. Report of the Patwari disclosing that possession of the land was given to the petitioner is also available on record as Annexure `C'. Case of the petitioner is t that lease deed was executed by the petitioner and the respondents on 29‑7‑1966. A complaint was lodged with the learned Collector, Sargodha, on 5‑5‑1969, saying that the petitioner obtained allotment of the land by committing fraud and forgery. A show‑cause notice was issued to the petitioner. Reply Annexure `H' was given by the petitioner wherein a plea was taken that he was a genuine allottee of the land in question `: and that he did not do any foul play. The learned Collector, Sargodha, on 24‑5‑1969 cancelled the land from the name of the petitioner. The said order was brought under challenge before this Court by filing this Constitutional petition.

2. It is contended that there was absolutely no legal justification to cancel the allotment of land on basis of a document which was ultimately found to be genuine. It is stressed by the learned counsel that there was no breach of conditions of the tenancy on the part of the petitioner and as such the learned Collector was not competent to cancel the allotment. Learned counsel has placed reliance on para. 8 of the parawise comments submitted in the case wherein it is disclosed that the petitioner is not guilty of breach of tenancy. According to the learned counsel the official who allotted land to the petitioner was prosecuted under the charge of forgery before a Court of law. He argues that the accused in the case was found innocent and was accordingly acquitted, He also submits that the petitioner was never made an accused in the case under the said charge. Mr. Akhtar Shabbir, learned AA.‑G‑states that this is art case which should be remanded to the learned Collector for its fresh decision on merits according to law.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at a considerable length and have perused the record. The admitted position in the case is that the land in question was allotted to the petitioner being a Lambardar of the village in the year 1965, and since then he had been in the cultivating possession of the land. The fact that the .petitioner was not one of the accused along with the officials of the Department for the alleged commission of offences of forgery is also conceded by the learned Law Officer. Thus, it is established that the petitioner was not a party to the charge of forgery and fraud alleged to have been committed by some body else. Even that charge was not proved by the prosecution before the competent Court of law. A statement at bar has been made by the learned counsel that the accused in the forgery case was acquitted because there was no evidence to connect them with the commission of the crime. There is no other contestant claiming the land in question except the petitioner. He is cultivating the land since the date of its allotment to hint, It appears necessary that the learned Collector should re‑appraise the evidence available on record. In the circumstances, the order dated 24‑5‑1969 passed by the learned Collector, Sargodha is set aside being without lawful authority and of no legal consequence. The case shall be sent back to the learned Collector for its fresh decision on merits, after hearing the parties, according to law. With this observation, this petition stands disposed of with no order as to costs. AA./M‑3227/L Case remanded.