1983 PLP 2076 (CLC)

The petitioner challenges through this petition the order dated 9th September, 1980, passed by the Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue, Punjab, holding that the petitioner was not entitled to the allotment of the land claimed and directing that the same should be disposed of according to the existing policy instructions.

2. Briefly, the facts of this case are that State land comprising killas Nos. 1, 2, 9, 10, 11 and 20 of Square No. 36, and killas Nos. 7, 8, 11, 12, 15, 16 and 23 of Square No. 52 in Chak No. 170/RB, Tehsil and District Sheikhupura, were allotted to Atta Ilahi, father of the petitioner under the Pedigree Livestock Breeding Scheme on 28th January, 1962, for a period of 10 years expiring in 1971. The petitioner's father died on 8th December, 1967. Under the Scheme the Government had the right to resume the grant or to allow the same to anyone of the heirs for the un-expired period. No such request was made by the petitioner before the expiry date and no specific order of resumption is said to have been made by the Government either.

3. The petitioner was appointed as Lambardar on 12th March, 1970. He applied for renewal and allotment of the lease for the un-expired period in his name on 10th April, 1973. The request was granted by the Collector on 24th June, 1973. Bashir Ahmad respondent felt aggrieved and filed an appeal but the same was rejected vide order dated 16th July, 1974. A revision petition, however, succeeded before the Member, Board of Revenue, on 9th January, 1974.

4. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner challenged the order of the Board of Revenue in Writ Petition No. 356‑75, which was allowed on 21st June, 1977. The case was sent back to the Board of Revenue for fresh‑decision as the officer who had decided .the same previously was not duly empowered. The Board of Revenue again accepted the revision petition of the respondent and allowed the land to him, vide order dated 8th December, 1977.

5. The petitioner challenged the above order through Writ Petition No. 798‑7$. It was accepted vide order dated 6th February, 1980, on the ground that the Member had failed to take into consideration the rights of the petitioner as a Lambardar. The Board of Revenue then passed the impugned order, under which, none of the parties to this petition, were found entitled and so a direction was made that the land be disposed of in accordance with the existing instructions.

6. The respondent had also filed a separate petition challenging the order of the Board of Revenue. It came up before this Court for consideration on 29th May, 1982, alongwith the present writ petition. Neither the petitioner nor his learned counsel appeared on that date. It was, therefore, presumed that they are not interested. The other writ petition was consequently decided on that date.

7. It is contended by the learned counsel that as the petitioner had been cultivating the land in dispute and the same was also allottable in his name as a Lambardar, the refusal on the part of the Board of Revenue to allot is without lawful authority. This contention, however, has no force on the face of it. The Scheme being relied upon by the learned counsel was suspended on 30th November, 1971, with regard to para. 6(b). It was suspended in totality on 31st March, 1972, and finally cancelled on 24th August, 1974. It would .thus mean that the Collector had no authority from 31st March, 1972 till 24th August, 1974, to act on the said Scheme and make any allotment or grant any permission with regard to the land in question in favour of the petitioner. The order dated 244th June, 1973, relied upon by the petitioner as the anchor‑sheet of his case is, therefore, unlawful and cannot confer any right on him.

8. Even otherwise, the petitioner has no case. As specifically stated by him in para. 2 of his petition the land could be allotted only for the unexpired period of lease. This is in accord with para. 25 of the Scheme. The petitioner's father died in 1967. The petitioner, therefore, could ask for the allotment immediateiy thereafter, but he did not take any step. He was appointed as Lambardar on 12th March, 1970, and even, there after, he did not make any move. The restoration was possible only under para. 26 which lays down certain requirements also. The grant had to expire to Kharif, 1971, according to para. 8 of the Scheme. There was thus no question of restoration under the Scheme.

9. The learned counsel then referred to the Scheme known as "grant of lease of State lands to Lambardars". This is a different scheme altogether. Even according to para. 10(i) of that Scheme the tenancy would come to an end on the death of petitioner's father but it could be available for allotment to his successor‑in‑office. The petitioner became the successor in 1.970 but he did not avail the right .before the Scheme came to an end on 31st March, 1972. The contention of the learned counsel that the order of the Collector was retrospective can also be of no avail as its effect would not be to upset the order of the Government suspending the Scheme in 1972.

10. The learned counsel then relied on para. 10(ii) (a) of the Scheme to say that the petitioner was entitled to continue the cultivation of the same land from year to year. Para. 10 (ii)(a) reads as under :‑.‑ When a lambardar dies the grant shall be resumed, but ordinarily his heirs shall be allowed to cultivate the land on temporary cultivation basis. The rent shall be charged at the average rate of temporary cultivation in the estate. If the heir who takes the land is subsequently appointed lambardar the land shall be allotted to hint with retrospective effect from the date of the death of the predecessor and the rent shall then be charged at the rate herein after prescribed for lambardars. l f he is not appointed the Person appointed as lambardar shall be given possession of the land with effect from the next harvest following the date of appointment."

11. As is clear from the above that right is with regard to a lambardari grant which is entirely different from the one being claimed through this petition. This provision confers a right of continuation of that grant and right of allotment on the successor lambardar. Under it the petitioner would have a right of allotment with retrospective effect but that could be done only if he had shown his willingness during the B continuation of that scheme. Here the petitioner did not take advantage of the provision till the Scheme was suspended. The petitioner thus did not abide by the provisions of any scheme. The Collector, therefore,~ bad no authority in 1913 to allot. In view of the above, the petitioner is not entitled under any Scheme. This petition, therefore, is dismissed. The parties are, however, left to bear their own costs. M. Y. M. Appeal dismissed.