1984 PLP 1308 (SCMR)

Rana Abdur Rahim Khan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Rana Maqbool Ahmad Kadri, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioner. Rao Muhammad Yousaf, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No.

1. Date of hearing: 20th June, 1984. M.S.H. QURAISHI, J.‑‑ The dispute relates to the refusal by the Revenue authorities to grant proprietary rights to the petitioner in respect of land measuring 13 acres situate in Chak No.8l W.B, Tehsil and District Vehari. The land had been allotted to the petitioner on 29‑11‑1956 under the Grow More Food Scheme for three years which period was subsequently extended to five years. Instructions were received on 8‑8‑1962 for grant of proprietary rights to all bona fide Grow More Food lessees whose term of the lease had expired in Rabi 1962 or later. But the Collector, by his dated 14‑12‑1962 held the petitioner ineligible for the reason that his allotment expired prior to the appointed time. The petitioner's appeal before the Additional Commissioner, however, succeeded on 16‑5‑1963, mainly on the ground that he had cultivated more than 50% of the land and that as possession had been given to him in December, 1956 his lease would expire after the appointed time. Notwithstanding the appellate order, the Collector, in the light of new instructions received from the Board of Revenue, dated 23‑8‑1965, for fresh scrutiny in all such cases before the grant of proprietary rights, again held the petitioner ineligible vide order dated 7‑2‑1966, for the reasons that (1) his allotment had expired prior to the specified time, (2) he had been given the land on tender in 1961‑62 and, therefore, his allotment was not in existence nor was he a tenant at the relevant time, and (3) he had, in violation of the conditions of the grant, cultivated non‑food crops. The Collector, therefore, ordered the resumption of the land. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Additional Commissioner but when the same was dismissed on 1‑12‑1966, he, instead of pursuing the matter before the higher Revenue authorities, instituted a suit for a declaration as to the nullity of the Collector's order of resumption. The trial Court held that the Collector's order was neither illegal, without jurisdiction, arbitrary nor capricious and that as such the suit was barred under section 36 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912. It, therefore, dismissed the suit on 10‑5‑1967. The petitioner's first and second appeals produced no result.

2. The contention raised before the High Court that the Collector, in view of the appellate order dated 16‑5‑1963, had no jurisdiction to re‑open the case, was repelled and it was held that the "owner would be entitled to institute such an inquiry before it confers the proprietary rights in accordance with law". Another submission made before the High Court that it should take note of the subsequent notification issued by the Government on 26‑4‑1971 allowing grant of proprietary rights to all allottees irrespective of their date of allotment or the date of termination of lease, was also rejected for the reason that it was for the petitioner to have moved the authorities which, admittedly, he had not .done and that the High Court in second appeal could not grant any such relief.

3. After hearing learned counsel, we find that the petition has no merit. The Collector's order of resumption, dated 7‑2‑1966, which had been the subject‑matter of challenge in the civil suit, had been passed in pursuance of instructions received from the Board of Revenue, directing scrutiny of all such cases prior to grant of proprietary rights. The Collector has given reasons, based on findings of fact, holding the petitioner to be ineligible. It is not shown that any express provision of law or any rule relevant to such scrutiny has been disregarded. That being so, the concurrent finding of the three Court below that the suit was barred by section 36 of the said Act not open to exception. As regards the instructions received on 26‑4‑1971, no copy of the same has been furnished. In any case it was for the petitioner, as rightly observed by the High Court, to have moved the authorities in the light of the said instructions. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. S . Q . Petition dismissed.