1992 PLP 1163 (SCMR)

Gulzar Ahmad Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court and Rao Muhammad Yousuf Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellants. S.M. Tayyab, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No.l. Ch. M. Sadiq, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent.No.2. Ch. Muhammad Sadiq, Advocate Supreme Court and Mian Attaur, Rehman for Petitioners. Gulzar Ahmad Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents Nos. l to

3. S.M. Tayyab, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No.4. Date of hearing: 26th August, 1991. ABDUL SHAKURUL SALAM, J.‑This order will dispose of Civil Appeal No.760 of 1989, Civil Appeal No.761 of 1989 and Civil Petition No.152 of 1990 as these challenge t1* same order of a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court passed in Writ Petition No. 2513 of 1984 on 1‑2‑1989. Relevant facts for the disposal of these matters are that Kale Khan was granted a lease of 8 acres of land under Guzara Scheme in the year 1955. The Scheme was later on merged into Ejected Tenants Scheme. The necessary condition of the lease was that the lessee would cultivate the land himself and not through anybody else. In course of time Kale Khan applied for grant of the proprietary rights. Ramzan Shah also applied. The applications of both were rejected by the revenue authorities. Kale Khan's application was rejected on the ground that he himself was not cultivating the land and therefore, he could not claim proprietary rights. Ramzan Shah's application was rejected on the ground that he was in unauthorized possession. Kale Khan and Ramzan filed separate writ petitions. These were disposed of by a single judgment recorded in Writ Petition No.2513 of 1984, wherein it was held that Kale Khan whose land was grabbed by a trespasser and who was unable to get rid of him despite restoring to remedies at law, could not be burdened with the responsibility of not fulfilling the condition of cultivating the land himself. His writ petition was allowed. As regards Ramzan Shah, the learned Judge observed that he being a, blind man, the Member, Board of Revenue shall provide him. alternate land and submit compliance report. This is vide order, dated 1‑2‑1989. The appellants have come up in appeal.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants had submitted that Kale Khan was not entitled to conferment of proprietary rights as he was not cultivating the land. As regards Ramzan Shah it was urged that no direction could be issued to allot him alternate land.

3. Learned counsel for Kale Khan has submitted that at one stage notice was issued to Kale Khan as to why the land be not cancelled because he was not cultivating the land himself. However, after hearing him the learned Assistant Commissioner restored the allotment in view of his old age vide, order, dated 24‑11‑1979.

4. Learned counsel for Ramzan Shah has submitted that though the allotment was in the name of Kale Khan but Ramzan Shah was cultivating the land was entitled to conferment of proprietary rights.

5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties we find no good ground to interfere in the order of the learned Judge as far as Kale Khan is concerned. As regards Ramzan Shah only direction has been issued under the impugned order for providing him alternate land. Since he had no right we will substitute the .direction with the observation that the learned Member, Board of Revenue may in his discretion in the circumstances of the case provide him alternate land.

6. Subject to the above, both the appeals are dismissed.

7. As regards Civil Petition No.152 of 1990, it is barred by 317 days and the explanation for the delay is not satisfactory. It is, therefore, dismissed. AA./M‑1588/S Order accordingly.