2001 PLP 1283 (SCMR)

DEEDAR HUSSAIN SHAH, J.‑‑‑This appeal, by the leave of the Court, is directed against the order of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan, dated 28‑2‑1995 passed in Review Application No.6 of 1995 and judgment dated 1‑2‑1995 passed in Writ Petition No.543 of 1984.

2. The facts, in brief, are that Muhammad Ramzan, the predecessor‑in- interest of respondents Nos. l to 6, who was an oustee from Islamabad, was allotted some State land under Islamabad Oustees Scheme in Chak No. 150‑E.B., Tehsil Vehari. Muhammad Ramzan made an application on 23‑11‑1974 seeking exchange of the land allotted td him in Chak No. 150‑EB with the land in Chak No.102/15‑L, the then Tehsil Khanewal. His application was allowed and he was allotted the land in Chak No.102/15‑L, on 1‑11‑1976, which land, according to the appellant had already been allotted to him under Grow More Food Scheme on 9‑6‑1974. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner which bore no fruit. He then filed a revision petition in the Board of Revenue, which was accepted by the learned Member (Colonies) vide his order, dated 5‑5‑1983. The learned Member held that in the presence of the allotment obtained by the respondent in Chak No. 150‑EB, he was not eligible for any other allotment and, in any case, D.C./Collector, Multan was not competent to cancel the allotment of the respondent in Chak No. 150‑EB, District Vehari, nor could he allow its exchange with the land in Chak No.102/15‑L.

3. Muhammad Ramzan assailed the order of the learned Member (Colonies) in a Constitutional petition, which was accepted by a learned Single Judge of the High Court, vide judgment dated 1‑2‑1995. Against the aforesaid judgment the appellant filed a review application which was dismissed in limine vide order, dated 28‑2‑1995.

4. Mian Saeed‑ur‑Rehman Farrukh, learned counsel for the appellant, inter alia, contended that the Member Board of Revenue in his order held that allotment of the disputed land was obtained by Muhammad Ramzan, the predecessor‑in‑interest of the respondents, through fraud, therefore, the Member, Board of Revenue exercising his jurisdiction under section 30(2) of the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912, cancelled the allotment or the disputed land and also revoked the deed of conveyance, which was got mutated by Muhammad Ramzan; that the learned High Court had erred in interfering the findings of the Member, Board of Revenue; that the Collector submitted an incorrect report that the allotment of the appellant appeared to be suspicious and that the disputed land was reserved for Islamabad oustees. Learned counsel further submitted that the learned High Court was not at all justified to accept the submission of the learned counsel for respondents Nos. l to 6 that "he has not claimed any land allotted in the earlier Chak and if any doubt exists, he surrenders the same"; that this exercise could be undertaken only by a competent officer in the Revenue hierarchy and was not germane to the jurisdiction of the learned High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. In support of his contentions learned counsel has relied on Habib Khan v. Additional Settlement Commissioner, Multan and others (1980 SCMR 84), Abdul Haque and another v. Khan Muqarrab Khan and others (1981 SCMR 691) and The State v. Malik Jehangir Khan (PLD 1979 Rev. 1, Punjab)

5. Raja Abdul Ghafoor, learned Advocate‑on‑Record, for respondents Nos. l to 6, pointed out that the land in dispute was reserved for permanent settlement of Islamabad oustees by the Provincial Government and such entry was made in the Revenue Record, which is at page 39 of the paper book; that Muhammad Ramzan holder of E.C.No.D‑002716, dated 14‑3‑1966, was allotted State land comprising Khasra No.69/1‑2‑3‑8 to 13, 18 to 21, measuring 101 Kanals, 10 Marlas in Chak No. 150/EB, Tehsil Vehari under Islamabad Oustees Scheme vide order, dated 7‑11‑1970 passed by the District Collector, Multan; thereafter Muhammad Ramzan submitted an application dated 23‑11‑1974 that the area comprising Khasra Nos.91/11‑20 21/2, 108/3 to 8, 13, 14, 17, 18 in Chak No. 102/15‑L, measuring 98 Kanals, 1 Marla, Tehsil Khanewal, tray be given to him in exchange of the allotted land in Chak. No. 150/EB, Tehsil Vehari. The then District Collector, Multan vide his order dated 26‑9‑1979 disallowed the exchange. Muhammad Ramzan went in appeal, which was accepted by the Commissioner Multan Division, Multan, vide order, dated 3‑8‑1976, remanding the case to the D.C/Collector, Multan for fresh decision after hearing the respondent; that the District Collector vide his order, dated 1‑11‑1976 cancelled the allotment made to Muhammad Ramzan in Chak No.150/EB and allotted the aforesaid land in Chak No.102/15‑L. Learned counsel further pointed out that the Collector, Multan District in his parawise comments, submitted in the High Court, denied the claim of the appellant, that the order of the Member, Board of Revenue in view of the above facts and circumstances was patently illegal, therefore, the respondents rightly approached the learned High Court, and after going through the record the learned Single Judge rightly allowed the writ petition and held that the order passed by the Member, Board of Revenue, dated 5‑9‑1985, was without lawful authority and of no legal effect and that the allotment made in favour of the respondents by the Collector on 1‑11‑1976 remained intact.

6. We have gone through the material placed on record and have minutely considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. Admittedly, the land in dispute was reserved for settlement of Islamabad oustees and the D.C./Collector, Multan as well as the Commissioner rightly decided the case in favour of the respondents, who had already paid the entire sale price of the land and the Deed of Conveyance was issued in their favour. Perusal of the record further shows that there exists no file of the original allotment in favour of the appellant under Grow More Food Scheme. The District Collector, Multan in his parawise comments (at page 54 of the paper book) stated that:‑‑ "The application dated 28‑12‑1974 given by Rehmat Ali respondent No.2 for allotment of alternate land in Chak No.90/15‑L which is available in record creates doubt about a genuineness of order, dated 8‑6‑1974 by which he was allotted alternate land in Chak No.102/15‑L. It is not understood why he applied for allotment of alternate land on 28‑12‑1974 when the alternate land has already been allotted to him on 8‑6‑1974. The Revenue Record does not support that Rehmat Ali was ever allotted the land in dispute." The learned High Court has also dilated upon the relevant aspect of the case in para. 2 of the impugned judgment while observing that:‑‑ . . "Report and parawise comments were called for in which it is asserted by the Collector that the suit land was included in the Islamabad Schedule and could not be allotted under Grow More Food Scheme. It was also submitted in the comments that the order dated 8‑6‑1974 by which respondent No.2 claims to have been allotted the suit‑land is suspicious and that the revenue record does not support that Rehmat Ali, respondent No.2 was ever allotted the disputed land. "

7. The case‑law and the provisions of section 30(2) of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912, cited by the learned counsel for the appellant are not relevant and applicable to the facts of the present case From the narration of facts it is crystal clear that the land in dispute was reserved for permanent settlement of the Islamabad oustees. The respondents had paid the entire price and the Deed of Conveyance was also registered in their favour. Even, the record does not show that the land in question was ever allotted to the appellant under the Grow More Food Scheme. The contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant are not tenable. It is borne out from the record that after the allotment of land to Muhammad Ramzan, the predecessor‑in‑interest of the respondents, had been dragged unnecessarily by the appellant in this litigation. Further remand of the case as observed by the Member, Board of Revenue, without any allotment order in favour of the appellant, as discussed above, would be an exercise in futility.

8. The impugned judgment is based on the principles laid down by this Court. We do not find any irregularity or illegality in the impugned judgment requiring interference by this Court. Resultantly, this appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. Q.M.H./M.A.K./R‑27/S Appeal dismissed.