1993 PLP 2123 (MLD)

These are three revision petitions against the FLC's order dated 12‑2‑1992 whereby the petitions filed by the petitioners were rejected. Since these petitions .are of identical nature, therefore are being disposed of by this common order. In these cases dispute is between the tenants about the disposal of resumed land under paragraph 18(3) of MLR 115.

2. The record of the cases was sent for and the parties summoned. Heard the counsel for both the parties and perused the record. The facts of the cases are given in the impugned order of CLC dated 12‑2‑1992 and need not be repeated.

3. The counsel for the petitioners argued that Mr. Subah Sadiq and Muhammad Akram Khan were declarant under MLR 115 and they had surrendered certain land in Chak No.221/EB and 219/EB. Since the surrendered land was under self‑cultivation of the declarants, therefore, it was to be disposed of under paragraph 18(3) of MLR

115. Accordingly, the DLC, made allotments in both the villages to the eligible tenants in the year, 1974. After these allotments, the dispute arose between the tenants of Chak No.221/EB viz. Bakhshaya and Hakim Ali v. Ismail and their mother and was finally decided by the Chief Land Commissioner, Punjab. While remanding the case pertaining to the allotments of Chak No. 221/EB vide order dated 3‑5‑1975, the CLC, Punjab also expressed in the same order that the allotments of Chak No.219/EB also needs to be reviewed. The counsel stated that neither the allotments of Chak No.219/EB were under dispute before the CLC nor the allottees (preserit petitioners) were afforded opportunity of hearing to explain their case. Therefore the CLC's order to the extent of upsetting the allotments of Chak No.219/EB was not only unjustified but also against the principles of natural justice as the allottees were condemned unheard. Moreover the said order remained unimplemented upto the years 1983‑

84. In the year 1984, the DLC initiated review proceedings where as, such review powers came to an end on 30‑4‑1975. Therefore, the DLC was not competent to review the allotment vide his orders dated 26‑7‑1984. As such, these orders also carry no legal force and are nullity in the eyes of law.

4. While arguing on the merits of the case, the counsel for ‑the petitioners stated that the petitioners were old tenants of Chak No.219/EB (patti of Watoonwala) and they were the tenants of the declarants from whom the land under dispute was resumed. Whereas the respondents were the tenants of the patti of Malkanwala and also tenants of some other land owners. Therefore, the petitioners had preferential claim for the allotment of land under dispute in Chak No.219/EB and the DLC had rightly made allotments in their favour vide order dated 14‑3‑1974. In support of this contention, the counsel has sent certain copies of Khasra Girdawari etc. from 1960‑61 and the voters' list of Chak No.219/EB for the year 1986‑87 to the effect that the petitioners were tenants of patti of Watoonwala where the disputed land was situated. Whereas the respondents were tenants in the Patti of Malkanawala and they resided there.

5. Concluding the arguments, the counsel prayed that the CLC's order dated 3‑5‑1975 and structural order to the extent upsetting the allotments of the petitioners may be set aside on the sole ground of non‑hearing the parties and the allotments made by the DIX vide orders dated 14‑3‑1974 may be ordered to be maintained.

6. The counsel for the respondents stated that the respondents were also old tenants and were equally entitled for the grant of resumed land but they were ignored by the DLC while making the allotments in the year 1974. Replying to the contention of the counsel for the petitioners, the counsel for the respondents argued that the procedure laid down by the Land Commission, Punjab vide notification dated 21‑3‑1973 about the eligibility and priority to such a tenant in cultivating possession of tenancy in the revenue estate shall have prior claim for grant has prospective affect but not retrospective. Therefore, the respondents being the tenants of patti commonly known as Malkanwala of Chak No.219/EB were equally entitled for the grant of land resumed in Chak No.219/EB in the patti of Watoonwala.

7. The counsel further argued that the CLC, Punjab was competent to examine the allotments in question under the suo motu powers vested in him. Therefore, the CLC had rightly directed the review of allotments in favour of the petitioners as the same were found to have been made against the procedure laid down for disposal of resumed land under para. 18(3) of MLR

115. The counsel stated that the CLC's order dated 3‑5‑1975 was not challenged by the petitioners before any higher forum, therefore, the said order attained finality and' stands implemented in the year 1984. In these circumstances, the petitioners have no case to agitate against the order of the CLC dated 3‑5‑1975 at this belated stage. Concluding the arguments, the counsel requested that the allotments made by the DLC Vehari vide order dated 26‑7‑1984 may be maintained.

8. After hearing the arguments of both the counsel, they were asked to produce documentary evidence in support of their contentions. Both the counsel sent their written arguments and certain copies of Khasra Girdawari etc which have been perused.

9. From the perusal of the record, it transpires that there was only dispute over the allotments of Chak No.221/EB before the CLC, Punjab on the petitions of different tenants of that Chak. While deciding these petitions, the CLC also tagged the allotments of Chak No.219/EB in that proceedings. No doubt that the CLC, had the powers to examine the Land Reforms matters under the suo motu powers vested in him but the same would have been exercised and final orders passed after hearing the necessary parties. In the instant case, neither the record of the allotments in Chak No.219/EB was sent for separately for suo motu scrutiny nor the parties were heard before upsetting these allotments. Therefore, the CLC's order to this extent was not only unjustified but also against the principles of natural justice and equity. Consequently the order, dated 3‑5‑1975 about the allotments in Chak No.219/EB is hereby declared to be of no legal effect on the sole ground that the allotees (present petitioners) were condemned unheard.

10. So far the allotments in favour of the petitioners made by the DLC vide orders dated 14‑3‑1974 are concerned, after hearing the arguments of both the sides and perusing the record, I observe that the petitioners had preferential claim over the allotments under para. 18(3) of MLR

115. They were the tenants of the declarants from whom the land under dispute was resumed. The Patwari also confirmed that fact that from 1974, the petitioners are in cultivating possession of the land. Naturally, the petitioners might have developed the land and brought under cultivation during the period of about 18 years. Therefore, I do not see justification to disturb the allotments of the petitioners made to them in the year 1974. I am also convinced that the DLC had rightly made allotments to the petitioners vide orders dated 14‑3‑1974. Consequently, these allotments are hereby restored in favour of the petitioners. In the result the orders passed by the lower land reforms authorities stand modified to this extent.

11. The case was heard on 4‑5‑1992 at Lahore. Judgment was reserved. The parties may be informed of the decision directly as well as through the DLC concerned: H.B.T./518/R?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Order accordingly.