1986 PLP 921 (MLD)

On 6‑6‑1975 Nawab Din petitioner filed suit against the Province of Punjab .for declaration to the effect that he was entitled to purchase suit land under Scheme dated 30‑3‑1949 sanctioned by the then Amir of Bahawalpur. As consequential relief, he prayed for permanent injunction restraining the respondent from interfering in his possession of the suit land.

2. The petitioner's case is that the disputed land was allotted to him as Lambardari grant on 28‑3‑1944. He was put in possession of the suit land accordingly. On 30‑31,1949, the then Amir of Bahawalpur sanctioned a scheme for disposal of Lambardari grant on permanent basis subject .to payment of price, to be determined by the Government and then to be demanded from the allottees. The Government neither determined the price nor did demand the same from the petitioner. On 12‑2‑1963, the petitioner was appointed as permanent Lambardar of village. Since no notice of demand was sent to him, therefore, on 29‑1‑1975, the petitioner applied to the Deputy Commissioner for grant of Patta Malkiyat. He also sought permission to deposit the sale price of the suit land. Tire Deputy Commissioner vide his order dated 11‑3‑1975 refused to receive price from the petitioner.

3. The suit was resisted by the respondent whereon six issues were framed. The trial Court dismissed the suit on 20‑5‑1980. The appeal filed by the petitioner failed on 12‑12‑1983, hence this revision.

4. Before me the finding of Courts below on issues Nos.1 and 5 have been challenged. The issues are as under:‑‑ "Issue No.1‑‑ Whether this Court is not competent to entertain this suit ? O.P.D Issue No:5‑‑ Whether the order cancelling the Lambardari grant was mala fide, illegal, beyond jurisdiction and as such void and ineffective as against the plaintiff? O.P.P."

5. As for Issue No. 1, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the petitioner was allotted disputed land as Lambardarq grant and there was an attack on his rights, therefore, he could seek declaration as to his legal character from the civil Court. So far as issue No.5 is concerned, the learned counsel submitted that the finding of the Courts below suffer from misreading/non‑reading of material evidence and that the observations that in view of Exh.D.3, the plaintiff has no right to purchase the land were legally incorrect.

6. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I feel persuaded to agree with him that the civil Court was quite competent to entertain and decide suit for declaration to the effect that the petitioner‑plaintiff was entitled to purchase suit land and the suit was not hit by the provisions of section 36 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act. Coming to Issue No.5, I find the learned counsel has failed to point out any misreading/non‑reading of the evidence by the trial Court. Both, the Courts below have mainly relied on document Exh. D.3. These are instructions issued by the Board of Revenue with regard to the grant of proprietary rights to Lambardar in Bahawalpur Division. The memorandum may be reproduced advantageously:‑‑ "It has been observed that section 5 of the Establishment of West Pakistan Act, 1955 read with Governor‑General Order No. 16 dated the 6th October, 1955 and section 3(2) of the West Pakistan Adaptation and Repeal of Laws Act, 1957, has authorised the Board of Revenue to amend or substitute any order passed by the Financial Commissioner of the former Bahawalpur State. As such the order of the Board of Revenue contained in Memorandum No.769‑60/1343‑C, dated the 15th March, 1960, is absolutely valid and supersede the previous order of the. Financial Commissioner Bahawalpur. (2) Under the circumstances the correct view will be that the Latnbardars who had already purchased proprietary rights had started making payment of the purchase price. of their Lambardari lots under the existing Bahawalpur rules upto 15th March, 1960 will be entitled to retain them, but thereafter no fresh transfer of rights will be allowed." In the case in hand, I find that the petitioner was not appointed as permanent Lambardar before the target date i.e. 15‑3‑1960; that he had not purchased proprietary rights by that time; that he had not started making payment of purchase price of his Lambardari lot under the existing Bahawalpur rules upto 15‑3‑1960. In this view of the matter I am convinced that the learned Courts below have rightly he that after 15‑3‑1960, the proprietary rights could not be transfer to the petitioner. It may be noted that although he was appointed permanent Lambardar on 12‑2‑1963, yet he did not care to pay the sale price upto 29‑1‑1975 when he applied to the Deputy Commissioner for grant of Patta Malkiat. I also find that both the Courts below have applied their conscious mind to relevant evidence and have given sound and cogent reasons in support of the conclusion arrived at by them.

7. For what has been stated above, there being no merit, the revision petition is dismissed in limine. M.Y.H. Revision dismissed.