2006 PLP 975 (SCMR)

IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.

Petitioners seek leave to appeal against the judgment dated 20th February, 2001 passed by the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan. (2). Precisely stating facts of the case are that predecessor-in-interest of Feroze Din got allotted a State land in Square No.95, Chak No.19/9-R, Tehsil Khanewal, District Multan, allegedly under the Criminal Tribes Scheme to non-Muslims Tenants. It is pertinent to note that statedly the land was in possession of non-Muslim Evacuee Occupancy Tenant and Government had decided to allot the State land to Evacuees who had migrated from India against their verified claim. Subsequently litigation between the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents and one Nabu who was in occupation of the land started and ultimately the Member, Board of Revenue cancelled the allotment from the name of Feroze Din in Square No.95 and remanded the case to the District Collector, Multan to examine the entitlement of Nabu on the land in dispute. After the death of Feroze Din his successor-in-interest filed Writ Petition No.1303 of 1969 before learned High Court which was disposed of vide judgment dated 18th October, 1972, whereby learned High Court made observation that if Nabu fails to establish his claim that he is an old allottee of the disputed land under the said scheme, both Nabu and Feroze Din will be heard for their entitlement afresh under this scheme. On remand of the case the District Collector, Multan vide order dated 12th June, 1973 observed that both of them are not previous allotted of the disputed land. This order was challenged by the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents within the hierarchy of Land Revenue Laws. Ultimately the Member, Board of Revenue on 8th June, 1974 maintained the order dated 12th June, 1973 passed by the District Collector. As such another Writ Petition No.1708 of 1974 before the High Court was filed by the respondents which was dismissed. After the dismissal of writ petition matter again went before the Revenue Authorities on the behest of legal heirs of Nabu as well as respondents. On 21st December, 1982 the Member, Board of Revenue observed that both are not entitled for the allotment of the land, as such respondents instituted another Writ Petition No.261 of 1983 which has been disposed of by means to impugned judgment. (3). Learned counsel for petitioners contended that the respondents are not entitled for the allotment of the land because their claim has been rejected as back as on 12th June, 1973 by means of order passed by the District Collector, Multan and subsequent order passed by the Member, Board of Revenue, dated 21st December, 1982. He further contended that learned High Court without taking into consideration that as far as the allotment in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of respondent Feroze Din, under the claim for allotment of land to certain criminal Tribes is concerned, it was abolished as back as in the year 1961 whereas the allotment in favour of Feroze Din was made in the year 1968 which was cancelled as he was not found entitled to retain possession of the land. It is also his case that there is discrepancy in the impugned judgment because in respect of claim of predecessor-in-interest for allotment of land in Square No.95 learned Single Judge in Chambers of High Court had obtained a report from the Assistant Collector to ascertain as to whether respondents are in possession of different Killa numbers situated in Square No.94 and on the basis of same it was observed that they are in cultivating possession so that are entitled for the allotment of land. (5). On the other hand learned counsel for caveat contended that the allotment was made in favour of Feroze Din under the Criminal Tribes Scheme to non-Muslim Tenants meant for the allotment of land to the Criminal Tribes and subsequently, vide notification dated 16th January, 2002 has been validated, therefore, respondents being in cultivating position has obtained the status of owners under this notification and for such reason learned High Court has rightly disposed of the matter, in their favour. (6). After hearing both the sides, following questions emerged for consideration:-- (1). Whether under order dated 10th December, 1968 predecessor-in- interest of respondent namely Feroze Din could have obtained the disputed land under the Criminal Tribes Scheme to non-Muslims Tenants as it was admittedly abolished in the year 1961? (2). Whether after the judgment passed by the learned High Court in the earlier round of litigation in Writ Petitions Nos. 1303 of 1969 and 1078 of 1974 the respondents have succeeded to establish their entitlement on the disputed land under any scheme if so to what effect? (3). Whether merely for the reason that respondents are in cultivating possession of the land in dispute can claim its ownership under notification dated 16th January, 2002? (4). Whether learned High Court was right in calling for the report from the concerned Revenue Authority to inquire , whether respondents are in possession of different Killa numbers situated in Square No.94 whereas their claim throughout has been that they are in possession of certain Killas in Square No.95.Thus, inter alia to examine the above questions leave o appeal is granted. Pending decision of appeal arising out of this petition, operation of the impugned judgment is suspended to the extent of the direction of granting lease holds rights to the petitioners. M.H./D-18/SC Leavegranted.