2003 PLP 38 (SCMR)

Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 16th May, 2002. TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J.‑‑‑Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment dated 4‑4‑2002 whereby Writ Petition bearing No.3100 of 1993 filed by the petitioner was dismissed upholding the determination of Revenue Authorities.

2. Facts briefly are that the respondent Noor Muhammad was allotted disputed land on 12‑10‑1954 under Grow More Food Scheme. This allotment was cancelled in the year 1962 in view of the Circular No.2805‑62/23 -S(G)III dated 8‑8‑1962. Subsequently the Government issued a general Order through Notification on 26‑4‑1971 directing that the Grow More Food Scheme allottees should be restored the land from which they had been ousted if the land in question had not been allotted under any permanent scheme. Instead of acting under aforestated notification the petitioner was given on lease the disputed land in the year 1972 under a temporary scheme for five years. Noor Muhammad challenged this allotment/lease and the learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Sargodha vide his order dated 2‑4‑1973 partially accepted the appeal. The petitioner as well as the respondent Noor Muhammad both filed revision petitions which were disposed of by the ,learned Member Colonies, Board of Revenue, Punjab through consolidated judgment dated 8‑5‑1975. It was noted by the learned Member in the judgment that at the time of issuance of aforementioned Notification dated 26‑4‑1971 Noor Muhammad respondent was in possession. The Collector in oblivion of the said Notification auctioned the disputed land for a period of five years in the year 1972, to the petitioner as such the lessee i.e. the petitioner should not suffer for the fault of Revenue Officer. He, however, maintained and the same was also agreed by Noor Muhammad respondent that he would wait for another two years till lease of Noor Zaman petitioner expires.

3. In spite of this determination the Collector Toba Tek Singh firstly extended the lease for a period of one year then through another order dated 24‑9‑1978 extended the lease up to Rabi 1983. The respondent Noor Muhammad approached the Collector/Deputy Commissioner, Toba Tek Singh for the restoration of the land earlier allotted to him under Grow More Food Scheme in view of Notification dated 26‑4‑1971. The Collector through an order dated 4‑2‑1990 accepted the prayer for restoration of respondent Noor Muhammad holding. that the disputed land should not have been given on lease to the petitioner Noor Zaman in the year 1972 in the presence of Notification dated 26‑4‑1971 whereby direction for restoration of the Grow More Food to allottees was already issued. The petitioner challenged this order through an appeal before the Commissioner, Faisalabad Division, Faisalabad who vide. his judgment dated 3‑6‑1990 rejected the appeal. The petitioner thereafter challenged the order of Commissioner before the Member, Judicial Board of Revenue, Punjab who vide his order dated 14‑9‑1992 dismissed the revision petition.

4. The petitioner thereafter filed Writ Petition No.3100 of 1993 challenging the orders of the Revenue Authorities and prayed conferment of proprietary rights upon him in view of notification issued by the Government of Punjab on 3‑9‑1979. The said writ petition has been dismissed through a detailed order vide the impugned judgment dated 4‑4‑2002. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.

5. We have considered the contentions and have gone through the entire documents appended with this petition. We have noticed that in this case for no fault of respondent Noor Muhammad he has been successfully kept out of possession by the petitioner for all this period. The land was allotted to the respondent under Grow More Food Scheme in the year 1956. It was cancelled in the year 1962 upon a general order issued by the Government. However, subsequently on 26‑4‑1971 the Government issued another notification protecting the rights of the Grow More Food Scheme allottees. The petitioner was never in the picture when the aforesaid notification was promulgated. However, the Collector without taking into notice the aforesaid Notification granted the disputed property through auction for a lease period of five years to the petitioner. The learned Member, Board of Revenue in a beneficial manner, so as to protect the right of the petitioner, allowed him vide his order dated 8‑5‑1975 to complete his lease period. He categorically stated that Collector should not have given the lease of the disputed land to the petitioner ‑in presence of Notification dated 26‑4‑1991. However, he held that the petitioner Noor Zaman should not suffer for the fault of Revenue Officer as such he allowed him to complete his lease period of five years ending in 1977. The matter does not end over here. The petitioner again succeeded to get extension of his lease through an order issued in a slipshod manner by the Collector on 24‑9‑1978 which is in the following terms:‑‑ This Revenue Officer while extending the lease had not at all bothered to go through the earlier orders passed by the Revenue Authorities. The respondent was ultimately given his right by the Collector through order dated 4‑2‑1990 but the same remained under challenge before different forums at the behest of the petitioner and ultimately the impugned order was passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court on 4‑4‑2002 maintaining the earlier orders of the Revenue Authorities, whereby claim of respondent Noor Muhammad a Grow More Food allottee was redressed.

6. The arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent did not satisfy the requirement of Grow More Food Scheme as he never brought under cultivation 50 per cent. of the area as such he was not eligible for restoration of his earlier lot, is totally devoid of any force. In this regard he has made reference to the report of the audit officer which was totally one‑sided and furthermore even if it be conceded that the respondent did not satisfy the requirement of Grow More Food Scheme it would not be of any help to the petitioner as his initial allotment was totally made in oblivion of the Notification dated 26‑4‑1971. It is also to be appreciated that, the decision of the Member, Board of Revenue dated 8‑5‑1975 was never challenged by the petitioner. He accepted the same and the respondent also waited for two years so as to ensure that his right would be considered under Notification dated 26‑4‑1971. At the cost of repetition the petitioner through manoeuvring secured extension of his lease through the aforesaid order of the Collector dated 24‑9‑1978. In these circumstances we are of the considered view that the orders of the Revenue Authorities which have been maintained by the High Court are unexceptionable and no interference can be made on any ground. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused. S.A.K./N‑95/S Leave refused