1983 PLP 153 (SCMR)

NASIM HASAN SHAH, J. This petition is directed against the order dated 5‑4‑1976 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court dismissing in limine the writ petition (W. P. No. 18/76) filed by the petitioners. The petitioners, who were tenants of the State land and were occupying approximately 11/12 acres each were granted proprietary rights up to the limit of 8 acres each out of the land allotted to them vide order of the Collector dated 9‑10‑1973 and the remaining 3 or 4 acres held by each, appears to have been available for allotment and some of it was allotted to Respondent No.

2. The order dated 9‑10‑1973 passed by the Collector was not challenged by way of an appeal or revision before the revenue authorities. However, an application appears to have been submitted after some time to the Board of Revenue for sale of the excess area held by them. This request was not accepted by the Member, Board of Revenue on the ground that under the instructions contained in Memo. No. 1283‑70/251‑CL‑V, dated 22‑1‑1971 the allottees could purchase proprietary rights on average market price pro vided the excess area did not exceed 10% of the prescribed limit. In the present case the excess area was more than 10% of the prescribed limit of 64 Kanals. Hence it could not be sold to the petitioners at the average market price. The petitioners, therefore, filed a writ petition before the Lahore High Court challenging the order of the Member, Board of Revenue but the same was rejected by the learned Single Judge on the grounds that the main order dated 29‑10‑1973 had not been challenged by the petitioners, the order of the Member, Board of Revenue did not suffer from any error and that the plea of the petitioners that they were allottees of the excess area and were eligible to its transfer under certain instructions of the Government was incorrect because according to the report submitted by the Collector Lyallpur the petitioners were unauthorised and illegal occupants of the land in dispute. Mian Saeed-ur‑Rehman Farrukh, in support of the petition attempted to challenge these findings but he eventually conceded that the main order of the Collector dated 9‑10‑1973 had not been challenged by the petitioners before any revenue authority nor was he able to produce any document to, prove that the excess area stood allotted in favour of the petitioners. We find that the order of the revenue authorities is just and fair. The petitioners have been transferred 8 acres of land and the remaining 3 acres or so in each case has in the meantime been allotted to others. This case, therefore, is not a fit one for interference. This petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Petition dismissed.