P L D 1963 W (PLP)

Well‑Sinking Scheme

‑Allotment of State land‑Collector's discretion to be exercised on proper lines‑Appeal lies from order of Collector. I will dispose of R. O. R. No. 504 (Haji Fateh Muhammad v. State) and R. O. R. No. 505 (Muhammad Saeed v. State) of 1960‑61 by a single order, as both the cases are identical. Haji Fateh Muhammad and Muhammad Saeed applied un successfully for lot No. 3 and lot No. 5 situated in Chak Nos. 456 and 455 respectively, under Well‑Sinking Scheme. Both of them went in separate appeals to the Commissioner, Sargodha who dismissed their appeals in limine on the plea that no appeal is competent regarding allotment of State land under the Well-- Sinking Scheme. The Commissioner observed "as provided in para. No. 2 of the statement of the conditions governing the allotment of State lands under the Well‑Sinking Scheme no person shall be entitled to receive a grant as of right and, therefore, it follows that it is entirely discretionary with the Collector to make allotments to the persons whom he thinks to be eligible for the same under the instructions issued by the Government. It is equally clear that the selection of deserving person for the allotment of State land entirely rest with the Collector, and no one has any locus standi to claim the allotment of land as a matter of right." The Commissioner's view that no appeal is competent against the order of the Collector in such case is not correct. It is true "that no person shall be entitled as of right to receive a grant" under the Well‑Sinking Scheme, but this is only a statement of a general principle, and does not amount to the provision that the order of the Collector, under this scheme, will be final. Even if the grant of such lands were absolutely discretionary, the Collector is bound to exercise this discretion on proper lines and it is the responsibility of the Commissioner and the Board of Revenue to ensure that this discretion is exercised properly, even according to the Commis sioner the allotments have to be made in the present scheme, under the instructions issued by the Government, and this implies that there should be scope for checking up, whether the instructions issued by the Government have been duly complied with. The orders of the Collector passed as a Revenue Officer are subject to an appeal to the Commissioner whose orders would be subject to appeal revision to the Board of Revenue. In the absence of any specific provision to the effect that the Collector's orders under the Well‑Sinking Scheme will be final the Commissioner's view that no appeal is competent in such cases cannot bed upheld. When an appeal is filed before him in such cases, he has‑unless he dismisses the appeal summarily, for good and sufficient reasons‑to call for the record, examine whether the Collector has disposed of the case properly and pass suitable orders. This is my finding on the general principle on the basis of which the Commissioner has summarily rejected the two appeals. So far as the present two cases are concerned, I have examined the files of the Collector's Office relating to the petitioners in the presence of their Advocate. These files show that the cases of the petitioners were properly examined by the Collector and were rejected as they were not qualified. I have scrutinised their applications and found that they were incomplete. Under these circumstances their applications were rightly rejected by the Collector. The revision petitions are accordingly rejected. K. M. A. Revision rejected.