1985 PLP 2254 (CLC)

This Constitutional petition has been moved to set aside the orders of respondents Nos. 1, 3 and 4, dated 14-4-1985, 18-3-1985 and 15-1-1985 respectively, who had disallowed the petitioner to acquire proprietary rights in the land which was given on lease to the petitioner on temporary cultivation for 10 years.

2. The brief facts of this case are that Allah Bakhsh, the petitioner acquired land measuring 80 Kanals on lease in Chak No. 220/9-R for temporary cultivation from 1966 to 1976. On 9-12-1979 he applied for the acquisition of proprietary rights in the land in dispute in accordance with Notification No. 3215-79/3973-C-II, dated the 3rd of September, 1979. It was found that he had another land measuring 100 Kanals and 18 Marlas which he donated in favour of his legal heirs by means of Mutation No. 58, dated 21-1-1981. On that account and due to the fact that the lease in his favour was never extended after the year 1976 and he had not paid the lease money to the Government and was a trespasser on the land in dispute, he was found ineligible for acquiring proprietary rights in the land in dispute by the Deputy Commissioner/ Collector, Bahawalnagar on 15-1-1985. He lodged an appeal before the learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Bahawalpur Division and was unsuccessful. Consequently, he filed a revision petition before the Board of Revenue which was also dismissed on 14-4-1985. Now he has invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court to quash the said orders.

3. It has simply been contended that the petitioner was an allottee of land which he mutated in favour of his heirs after having permission from the Collector under section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 and he was not an owner of the said land. The aforementioned notification, dated 3-9-1979 envisages the following matters for eligibility of a person to acquire proprietary rights: (i) that he should be a tenant for temporary cultivation; (ii) that he should have been in continuous cultivating possession of the leased land since before Kharif, 1977; (iii) that he should either be landless or should possess area less than the subsistence holding i.e., 124 acres; (iv) that a lessee (including members of a family) can have only one grant or share therein either under these conditions or under any other scheme issued by the Government; and (v) that the Board of Revenue retained its absolute discretion in the grant of temporary rights and the selection of grantees.

4. It has been stated in the impugned orders that the lease was not extended to the petitioner beyond the year 1976. He had contended that it was extended for two years but the record of extension was not available. So it shall be deemed that the period of lease was not extended beyond 1976. At the time of filing, the. application for acquiring proprietary rights, the petitioner was not a lessee of the land but was a trespasser as he did not pay the lease money even. Lastly another grant existed in his favour which he had mutated in favour of the members of his family and under para. 4 clause (b) of the said notifica?tion, dated 3-9-1979, he was not eligible to acquire the disputed grant. 5.??????????????????????????????????? The right to acquire proprietary rights in the land in dispute has rightly been refused to the petitioner. 1, therefore, see no merit in this writ petition and dismiss the same in limine. M.Y.H.????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.