2026 PLP 629 (CLC)

BABAR AMAN BABAR, MEMBER (JUDICIAL-I).

Brief detail of the case is that on the application of the appellant, the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue), Sahiwal, vide order dated 14.07.2022 resumed the state land measuring 95-Kanal and 05-Marla owned by the Provincial Government located in Chak No.109/9-L, Tehsil and District Sahiwal, in favour of the state. The ADC (R) further directed for retrieval of the state land from the illegal encroachers and imposition of tawan along with recovery of the same. Being aggrieved, the defendant Nos.4(i-ix), the defendants Nos. 5-10 and the defendant No.11 filed three separate appeals before the learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Sahiwal Division, who vide impugned orders dated 15.05.2023 disposed of the appeal of the defendants Nos. 4(i-ix) setting aside the order of the ADC (R) and restoring the land in their favour and disposing of the appeals of the defendants Nos. 5.-10 and defendant No.11, remanding the matter to the ADC (R), Sahiwal, for decision afresh. Hence, this appeal.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the Additional Commissioner while passing the impugned order failed to take notice of the fact that neither the deceased defendant, Abdul Sattar son of Subhan Din, was member of Co-operative Farming Society nor any society passed any resolution in his favour. That Abdul Sattar was not allotted any state land but he allegedly through misrepresentation and fraud succeeded to get the alleged proprietary rights. That there is no record regarding allotment of the state land or grant of proprietary rights in the office of Colony Assistant, Sahiwal. That the defendants Nos. 4(i-ix) applied to the ADC (R) for execution of the conveyance deed which was rejected. vide order dated 12.10.2019. after a thorough probe. That the said order was not challenged before higher forums which had attained finality. That the legal heirs of Abdul Sattar, despite the fact that neither any conveyance deed was executed in favour of their father, sold the state land measuring 40-Kanal to the defendants Nos. 5-10 vide agreement to sell dated 20.10.2021 and land measuring 30-Kanal to the defendant No.11. That the lower court did not consider that according to Section 18 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912, a tenant's rights or interests in government land cannot be attached or sold to satisfy a court decree or order, or in any insolvency proceedings. That the defendants just to build their arguments sought execution of the conveyance deed. That the defendants Nos. 5-10 filed a suit for specific performance in the Civil Court which is still pending. That the impugned order was issued in absence of the appellant and without hearing his contention. That the appeal of the defendants Nos. 4(i-ix) was badly time barred but this aspect was not taken into consideration by the lower court. That the lower court admitted this fact that the conveyance deed was not issued. That without any conveyance deed, the defendants cannot sell the state land even after obtaining approval of the competent authority. That the matter has been reported to be of land under Cooperatives but no Cooperative Officer was ever heard or asked about the allotment of the land. That now the Colony Assistant submitted Parawise Comments which is against all the previous reports and orders of the ADC (R) which indicates collusion of insiders to usurp the state land illegally. Finally, the appellant prayed that if the instant appeal is not accepted and the impugned order is not set aside upholding the order of ADC (R), Sahiwal, the interest of the state shall be blatantly infringed.

3. Learned counsel for the defendant Nos.4(i-ix), 6, 8-11 argued that the instant appeal has been filed under Section 161 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967, wherein law does not provide second appeal. That they had filed an appeal against the order dated 12.10.2019 passed by the ADC (R) before the Additional Commissioner, who vide order dated 15.05.2023, restored the impugned land in their favour and directed for issuance of the conveyance deed. That they were not heard by the ADC (R) while issuing orders dated 12.10.2019 and 14.07.2022. That the Additional Commissioner held that the Colonization Act is not applicable in the instant case. That the appellant is not a member of Cooperative Society, therefore, he has no locus standi to challenge any proceeding. That the impugned order dated 15.05.2023 for issuance of the conveyance deed had attained finality, as no appeal has been filed against the same. That the appellant never assailed the allotment. That they have also filed a Writ Petition No.1824/2014 before the Hon'ble Lahore High Court wherein the DC admitted the allotment and grant of PRs to their predecessor regarding the impugned land. Finally, the defendants prayed for dismissal of the instant appeal.

4. Learned counsel for the defendants Nos.5 and 7 argued that after fulfillment of all conditions and payment of price, the defendant No.4 has become owner of land in question, therefore, the appeal is baseless. That none from the Provincial Government or Cooperative Society challenged the allotment or membership of Abdul Sattar. That the deceased was rightly allotted land measuring 95K-05M. That the appellant has no locus standi to challenge the allotment of the deceased. That the Colony Assistant or Society Office being custodian of the record is responsible, if the file has been misplaced. That the defendant purchased the land through agreement to sell which falls within the ambit of Civil Court. That the impugned order is well reasoned and free of any lacuna. Finally, the defendants prayed for dismissal of the instant appeal.

5. Arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties were heard at length. The defendants also submitted their written arguments which have been placed on the file. Record available with the case file along with the impugned orders was also perused carefully. Report from the Colony Assistant submitted to the predecessor learned Member also perused.

6. On examination of the record, impugned orders and reports of the revenue field staff it reveals that the predecessor of the defendant Nos.4(i-ix), Abdul Sattar was allotted the state land measuring 95-Kanal and 05-Marla owned by the Provincial Government under Cooperative Farming Scheme, in Chak No.109/9-L, Tehsil and District Sahiwal, in 1956. The defendants claim that the District Collector, Sahiwal, vide order dated 21.04.1986, granted the PRs to Abdul Sattar but they could not adduce original orders of the DC before this Court as well as before the District Collector and ADC (R). In 2008, the revenue field staff without seeking permission from the District Collector, passed the inheritance mutation illegally in favour of the legal heirs of Abdul Sattar. The defendants kept silent from 1986 to 2014 which makes the case extremely doubtful. The defendants filed Writ Petition No.1824/14 before the Hon'ble Lahore High Court. The District Collector during pendency of the writ petition, vide order dated vide order dated 24.04.2016, constituted a Committee comprising Assistant Commissioner, Sahiwal, District Monitoring Officer, Sahiwal and Colony Assistant. Sahiwal for probe regarding existence of the allotment order. The Inquiry Committee, on 21.05.2016, recommended that in absence of the original allotment orders and proper advice of the Cooperatives Department, conveyance deed cannot be issued. The Hon'ble High Court, on receipt of report, vide order dated 26.05.2018, directed the District Collector to decide the case. Accordingly, the ADC (R) on the report of Inquiry Committee land non-availability of original allotment letter and order for grant of PRs, rejected the application of the defendants, vide order dated 12.10.2019. The ADC (R) also provided opportunities to the defendant No.4(i-ix) for provision of evidence or any advice from the Cooperative Society to prove their version and rejected the application of the defendants. Later on, on the application of the appellant, the ADC (R) obtained report from the Colony Assistant. The report of Colony Assistant dated 02.06.2022 reveals that the impugned land is not under possession and cultivation of the legal heirs of the allottee. It is also proven, and admitted by the defendants, that they have sold the state land to the defendants Nos. 5-11 illegally and in blatant disregard of the Section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 vide which no Government land can be sold without approval of the Commissioner and before issuance of the conveyance deed. The ADC (R), vide order dated 14.07.2022, on account of violation of terms and conditions of the allotment, resumed the land in favour of the state with direction to the Assistant Commissioner, Sahiwal, to retrieve the state land from the illegal encroachers and impose tawan for illicit cultivation upon them. Despite such irregularities, the learned Additional Commissioner while issuing the ex-parte impugned order, wrongly presumed that Colony Act, 1912 is not applicable in the instant case. It is observed that not affording hearing opportunity to the person who provided all proofs, and challenged illegalities committed by the defendants in collusion with field staff, is questionable. The legal position was also checked from the Colonies Department, Board of Revenue, which has underscored that all such lands fall, and are allotted, under the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912, hence, the provisions of the said Act are equally applicable. Thus, it is held that the allottees cannot sell or sublet the land allotted under Cooperatives Department / Societies before issuance of PRs and conveyance deed and without approval of the Commissioner. Learned counsel for the defendants could not satisfy the court regarding their contentions and could not point out any infringement of their rights. Moreover, they could not rebut the facts and legal position as stated above.

7. In view of the foregoing, the Revision is hereby accepted. The learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Sahiwal Division, failed to appreciate the aforesaid facts of the case and issued the impugned orders dated 15.05.2023 which are not sustainable in the eyes of law and are hereby set aside. Resultantly, the orders passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue), Sahiwal, dated 12.10.2019 and 14.07.2022 are upheld with the direction to the District Collector, Sahiwal, to resume the state land in faour of the state and retrieve the same from illegal encroachers imposing maximum tawan as per prevailing law, rules and policy. The Registrar, Board of Revenue, is directed to send a copy of this order each to the learned Commissioner, Sahiwal Division, Sahiwal, and the District Collector, Sahiwal, for information and necessary action. Case file be consigned to record room after its due compilation and completion. MQ/9/Rev Revision allowed.