1989 PLP 1648 (CLC)

The land Utilisation Committee in its meeting held on Ist November, 1966 decided that the representations of the tubewell owners were rejected and it was decided that land commanded by tubewells should be disposed of as decided in the meeting of Land Utilisation Committee, held in March,1%5 subject to the following conditions:‑ (i) The tubewell owners should be charged the highest auction price for land sold in the same or adjoining Deh and not the average price; (ii) the holding of the purchaser should not exceed 240 acres; and (iii) If a tube‑well owner is otherwise eligible i.e. being mohagdar, small khatedar etc., his case may be considered on merits. Sd/‑ Dy. Secretary (L.U.) for Secretary (Land Utilisation), B.O.R., W. Pakistan."

3. It is the case of the ` petitioner that in pursuance of the above Memorandum he applied for the transfer of the land. He was asked to deposit the price which according to the petitioner was not the price prevalent in the vicinity and, therefore, he made representation for charging the price prevalent in the vicinity. According to the petitioner the above representation was accepted. It further appears that one Jamal and Allah Warayo got allotted 12.20 acres and 6 acres of land respectively out of the suit land, which was objected to by respondent No.5 Ghulam Qadir before the Board of Revenue Sind which transferred the case to the Commissioner Sukkur Division for disposal , who registered the same as an appeal and disposed of the same by the impugned order dated 24‑5‑1977, inter alia, holding that the petitioner (1) had not installed any tubewell on the suit land, (2) had not paid the price and the lease money for the period 1967‑68 to 1970‑71 was not paid. He accordingly held that the petitioner was not entitled to the suit land. Against the above order the petitioner filed an appeal, which was dismissed by the Member Board of Revenue by his impugned order dated 6‑8‑1978 on the ground of limitation as well as on merits. The petitioner being aggrieved by the above order has filed the present petition.

4. In support of the above petition Mr. Kunwar Mukhtar Ahmad, learned counsel for the petitioner, has urged that there is overwhelming documentary evidence to indicate that the finding recorded by the Commissioner on the question of facts and concurred with by the Member, Board of Revenue are contrary to the factual position. In furtherance of his above argument he has, inter alia, referred to the Colonization Officer's letter dated 14‑7‑1975 and the other documents on record. It appears that the Commissioner while passing the impugned order has not referred to any documentary evidence and has not dilated upon the documents which are in favour of the petitioner and which are part of the revenue record. In our view it will be just and proper to remand the case to the Commissioner, Sukkur Division with the direction to rehear the above appeal after notice to the parties and to dispose of the same in accordance with law. The appeal may be disposed of within six months from the date of the receipt of the order of this Court.

4. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms with no order as to costs. H.B.T./W‑38/K Order accordingly,