2021 PLP 794 (MLD)

CH. MUHAMMAD IQBAL, J.

This single judgment, I intend to decide the above titled writ petition along with connected Writ Petitions Nos.10340/2011 and 13246/2010 as common questions of law and facts are involved in these cases.

2. Through these writ petitions, the petitioner has challenged the vires of order dated 19.04.2011 passed by the Member (Judicial-V11), Board of Revenue, Punjab who accepted ROR Nos.1708 and 1729 of 2009 and set aside order dated 19.09.2006 passed by the District Officer (Revenue), Pakpattan as well as order dated 23.10.2009 passed by the Executive District Officer (Revenue), Sahiwal and remanded the matter to the Commissioner, Sahiwal Division, Sahiwal with the directions to decide the matter afresh after examining the various instructions of Board of Revenue on the subject and affording hearing to the parties,

3. Brief facts of the cases as contained in these petitions are that land measuring 200-Kanals of Square No.28 situated at Chak No.145-EB, Tehsil Arifwala, was reserved for Lambardari grant. But the said land was allotted to the following persons:- (i) Muhammad Bakhsh son of Ghamoo (predecessor-in-interest of respondents Nos.1 to 3) land measuring 64-Kanals. (ii) Rehma son of Muhammad Bakhsh (predecessor-in-interest of Shaukat Ali etc.) land measuring 63-Kanals and (iii) Ruldu son of Phuman - land measuring 72-Kanals under ejectment tenant scheme in 1952. The said scheme was abolished in the year 1960. The Government decided to grant proprietary rights of the land meant for ejected tenants/ lessees on certain conditions except the land (as per condition No. VIII) situated within 10-miles of outer limits of first class municipalities. As the suit land was within prohibitory zone, notices were issued to the tenants and said land was resumed by the Collector, Pakpattan vide order dated 17.04.1965. After resumption of land measuring 100-Kanals from Ruldu son of Phuman and Muhammad Bakhsh son of Ghamoo the same was allotted to Talib Khan, Lambardar of the same Chak under the Lambardari grant who is still in possession. Against the above said resumption/allotment order predecessor-in-interest of the respondents filed a civil suit which was decreed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sahiwal vide judgment and decree dated 16.12.1966. Feeling dis-satisfied the Province of West Pakistan filed appeals which were allowed by the learned Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 24-10-1968 who set aside judgment and decree of the learned trial court. The predecessor-in-interest of Shoukat Ali etc. and Mst. Jannat Bibi assailed the above decision in RSA No.330/69 RSA No.332/69 which were disposed of vide order dated 20.06.1991 and to their extent, said judgment and decree has attained finality. Notices under Section 24 of the Colonization of Govt. Lands Act, 1912 were issued in the year 1983 and the District Collector resumed the land on 30.11.1992 in pursuance of judgment of the learned District Judge which has attained finality against Manzoor Ahmad who had not challenged the said decision any further. Manzoor Ahmad switched over to other forum and filed appeal before the Additional Commissioner, which was dismissed on 23.02.2000. Petitioner being permanent Lambardar of the said village requested the Member Board of Revenue for allotment of resumed land to him under Lambardari grant and the District Officer (Revenue) Arifwala on 22.04.12006 submitted detailed report to the Member, Board of Revenue for the allotment of land measuring 100-Kanals to the petitioner. In pursuance of directive issued by the Member Board of Revenue, the D.D.O (Colonies) resumed the land measuring 36-Kanals comprising Nos.28/9 to 12 and 13/1 situated in Chak No.145-EB already reserved for Lambardari grant since 1935 was allotted to the petitioner vide order dated 19.09.2006 and Mutation No.3437 and Mutation No.3440 dated 23.09.2006 were accordingly sanctioned on 23.09.2006. Against the above allotment respondents filed appeals which were dismissed by the Executive District Officer (Revenue) vide order dated 23.10.2009. Respondents Nos.1 to 3 again filed ROR No.1708/2009 in which status quo order granted. Petitioner filed application for clarification of stay order on 19.11.2009, in which it was clarified that stay order was not extended, as the same has elapsed. After the above classification, the possession of land measuring 36-Kanals was delivered to the petitioner through Roznamcha Waqiati dated 21.11.2009. Respondents filed application for restoration of their possession which was allowed vide order dated 24.05.2010. Petitioner challenged said order through Writ Petition No.13246/2010. Shoukat Ali etc., filed ROR No.1729/2009 against order dated 23.10.2009 passed by the Executive District Officer (Revenue) which was accepted by the Member (Judicial-VII), Board of Revenue, Punjab vide order dated 19.04.2011 and set aside order dated 19.09.2006 passed by the District Officer (Revenue), Pakpattan and order dated 23.10.2009 passed by the Executive District Officer (Revenue), Sahiwal and remanded the matter to the Commissioner, Sahiwal Division, Sahiwal with the directions to summon the parties and decide the matter after examining the various .instructions of Board of Revenue on the subject. Hence, these writ petitions.

4. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both the parties at full length and gone through the record with their able assistance.

5. After remand the matter in issue is still pending before the Commissioner Sahiwal Division Sahiwal and the petitioner may raise all the objections before the Commissioner Sahiwal Division, who shall decide the matter on merit whereas, it is settled law that constitution petition is not maintainable against remand order. Reliance is placed on the case titled as Muhammad Ilyas Khan v. Muhammad and others (1986 SCMR 251). As after the remand the matter is still pending before the Commissioner, Sahiwal Division, Sahiwal and the petitioner is at liberty to raise all the legal and factual objections before the said forum which forum is under legal obligation to re-examine the case and decide the matter afresh and after decision of the same the aggrieved party whereof will have remedies as per law as settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in a case titled as Allah Ditta and others v. Member (Judicial) Board of Revenue and others (2018 SCMR 1177). Reliance can also be placed on the cases titled as Ramzan v. Rehabilitation Commissioner (Legal) Sargodha and another (PLD 1963 (W.P.) Lahore 461), Akbar Ali and 18 others v. Mukhtar Ahmad and 14 others (2007 CLC 768) and Ghulam Ahmad v. Member Board of Revenue Punjab, Lahore and others (2010 CLC 1921).

6. As far as order dated 24.05.2010 whereby the Member (Colonies) Board of Revenue restored the possession of the respondent. The said order was challenged before this Court in W.P.No.13246 of 2010 in which status quo order was passed on 23.06.2010, which is still operative. As the matters have been remanded back by the Member Board of Revenue to the Commissioner Sahiwal Division Sahiwal as such the issue of restoration of the possession to the respondent shall also be decided afresh by the said forum without being impressed by the above impugned order dated 24.05.2010.

7. In view of above, these writ petitions are disposed of. However, Commissioner, Sahiwal Division, Sahiwal is directed to decide the case between the parties as early as posSsible preferably a within two months. MH/M-15/L Order accordingly.