1994 PLP 904 (CLC)

‑‑‑‑Ss. 10 & 30‑‑‑Grow More Food Scheme‑‑‑Allotment of land‑‑ Cancellation‑‑‑Land in dispute which was duly allotted under Scheme, was confirmed in name of allottee who had paid full price thereof after deed of conveyance was executed and registered in his name‑‑‑Later on allotment was cancelled and land in dispute was resumed on application of informer, who otherwise had no locus standi to be impleaded, on ground that land in dispute was within municipal limits despite it was clearly stated in report that land in dispute did not fall within prohibited area at the time of grant of proprietary rights to allottee/transferee‑‑‑Order, resuming land in dispute, based on erroneous assumption of fact, could not sustain. Syed Sajjad Raza Jaffery for Petitioners. Irfan Qadir, Add1.A.‑G. for Respondents. Ch. Abdur Rashid Gujjar for Applicants (in C.M. No. 2790 of 1990). Date of hearing: 2nd December, 1992. This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan calls in question the order dated 5‑4‑1988 passed by the learned Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue, Punjab, whereby the land allotted to the petitioners under Grow More Food Scheme was cancelled.

2. The facts in brief are that Shameer, petitioner, was allotted land in Chak No.352/GB, Tehsil Jaranwala, District Faisalabad, under Grow More Food Scheme on 10‑6‑1960. Later it transpired that the land fell within the prohibited zone and was, therefore, resumed. He applied for the grant of alternate land whereupon the Colony Assistant/Collector, Faisalabad, vide order dated 31‑12‑1979 allotted alternate land measuring 98 Kanals and 13 Marlas situated in Chak No.56, Tehsil Jaranwala, District Faisalabad. The proprietary rights were also confirmed in his favour vide order dated 11‑1‑1985 passed by the Deputy Collector, Faisalabad. Subsequently, he paid full price of the. land and the deed of conveyance was also executed and registered in his name. Rahim Din and others moved Civil Miscellaneous Petition No.2790/90 for being impleaded as party on the ground that they were lessees. My learned brother Fazl‑i‑Mahmood, J. as he then was, by order, of 11‑6‑1990 directed that the petition be placed for appropriate orders alongwith the main case. However, when the main case was listed for hearing on 10‑11‑1990, C.M. No.2790/90 was neither listed for hearing nor the name of the counsel for the applicants appeared in the cause list. The petition was, however, accepted on 10‑11‑1990 without notice to the applicants, who moved Review Application No.50/90. Consequently, the order dated 10‑11‑1990 was recalled and the main petition as well as C.M. No.2790/90 was ordered to be listed for hearing. Hence these proceedings.

3. Rahim Din, etc., applicants herein, are not entitled for any equitable relief in these proceedings, in that, the predecessor‑in‑interest of Ashiq Muhammad deceased, applicant No.3 herein, earlier filed Writ Petition No.6143/88 in respect of the land in dispute, but the same was dismissed on 7‑5‑1988. They have suppressed this material fact in their application for being impleaded as party. Likewise, the. Additional Commissioner, Sargodha Division, vide order dated 13‑4‑1978 rejected the claim of Abdul Hamid, applicant No.2, for the allotment of the disputed land, but he failed to challenge the same by way of appeal or revision. It had, therefore, attained finality. Furthermore this fact was never disclosed in the application. Ashiq Muhammad deceased, predecessor‑in‑interest of the applicants, filed a suit against Shameer etc. in respect of the same land, which was dismissed on 7‑5‑1980. Rahim Din, father of Abdul Hamid, applicant No.2, filed an application as an informer before the learned Member, Board of Revenue, whereupon suo motu proceedings were initiated and the land of , the writ petitioners was cancelled mainly on the ground that the land in dispute was within the municipal limits. It is clearly stated ink the report that the land in dispute does not fall within the prohibited area and at the time of grant of proprietary rights; 42 per cent of the disputed land was under cultivation as per Khasra Girdawaris placed on record. Shameer, petitioner, after obtaining the proprietary rights, transferred the land by sale through Mutations. Nos.1057 and 1083 to Muhammad Saleem son of Karam Din.

4. Clearly the applicants have no locus standi to be impleaded as party to the writ petition or to object to the conferment of proprietary rights in favour of the writ petitioners on 11‑1‑1985.

5. The impugned order of the learned Member, Board of Revenue is based on erroneous assumption of fact that the land in dispute was not situated beyond three .miles radius from the outer limits of Municipal Committee Gujranwala and on this ground alone it is liable to be quashed. In view of the above, the writ petition is accepted and the impugned order is declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect, but there shall be no order as to costs: H.B.T./S‑391/L Petition accepted.