1984 PLP 2230 (CLC)

‑‑‑S. 10‑Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972), S. 3‑Intra‑Court Appeal‑Lease of land for temporary cultivation‑Resumption of Appellant given disputed land on lease for temporary cultivation for 5 years expiring in Rabi 1980 but same was resumed in 1979 and half of which allotted under Gallantry Award Scheme to an army officer and half included in Schedule of Islamabad Oustees Scheme and allotted to respondents‑Contention that such allotment made at their backs and that appellant remaining in cultivating possession for many years and having applied for grant of proprietary rights resumption order is nullity in eye of law‑Appellant at time of resumption of land not preferring appeal, review or revision and scheme regarding grant of proprietary rights notified six months after resumption‑Order of resumption, held, needs no interference, in circumstances. ORDER KHIZAR HAYAT, J.‑This Intra‑Court Appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge in Chambers, dated 20th March, 1983, whereby the Writ Petition No. 362/82 praying that the order, dated 10th February, 1982 passed by Secretary (Colony), Board of Revenue and the order, dated 14th February, 1982 passed by District Collector, be declared without lawful authority, was dismissed.

2. The facts leading upto this appeal are that the appellants were given disputed land on lease for temporary cultivation for 5 years which was due to expire in Rabi 1980. It was resumed on 5th February. 1979 by the District Collector, Sahiwal. Subsequently half of the square was allotted under the Gallantry Award Scheme to Lt.‑General Muhammad Iqbal Khan and other half was returned by the G. H. Q. as it was not utilized by them under that scheme. This half square was then allotted to one Sher Muhammad on 16th October, 1979 in open auction for temporary cultivation. It so happened that on 14th February, 1982 Secretary (Colony), Board of Revenue respondent No. 2 allowed inclusion of the disputed land in the schedule of Islamabad Oustees Scheme for allotment to respondents Nos. 4 to 8 and consequently the District Collector respondent No. 3 by his order, dated 14th February, 1982 terminated the lease from the name of Sher Muhammad above‑mentioned and allotted the same to the respondent.

3. The appellants challenged the order of respondent No. 2, placing the land in schedule of Islamabad Oustees being without lawful authority since it was passed at their back. The appellants also claimed that since they remanded in cultivating possession of the land for many years, and had also applied for the grant of proprietary rights under the scheme notified by the Punjab Government on 3rd September, 1979, therefore, the allotment of the land to the respondents tantamounts to depriving then of their rights without giving them a chance to set up claim hence it was nullity in the eye of law.

4. Learned Single Judge in Chambers having fully considered the facts and material on record observed that the District Collector resumed the whole square of land in dispute which was on lease with the petitioners on 5th February, 1979 after proper notice to the appellants which was not challenged before any higher forum and the same had thus attained finality and that the scheme of 3rd September, 1979 under which the petitioners have claimed a presumptive right came more than six months after the termination of their tenancy, therefore, they cannot claim any right in the disputed land under the scheme, dated 3rd September, 1979. It was further observed that the District Collector has now reserved the disputed half square for allotment to Gallantry Awardees and shall not be disposed of under lease for temporary cultivation. Being aggrieved of the order of the learned Single Judge in Chambers, the present I.‑C. A. has been preferred.

5. We have heard the learned counsel at some length and also gone through the documents appended with the petition.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants has admitted before us, that the disputed land was resumed by the District Collector from the appellants on 5th February, 1979 for allotment to Gallantry Awardees and the appel lants did not prefer any appeal, review, or revision against that order. He also admitted the scheme regarding the grant of proprietary rights to the temporary lease holders were notified on 3rd September, 1979, i. e. six months after the resumption of land from the appellants. In our view, B therefore, both the impugned orders, dated 10th February, 1982 and 14th February, 1982 passed by respondents Nos. 2 and 3, have not in any manner taken away any vested right of the appellants in the land in dispute and the learned Single Judge in Chambers was, therefore, right in dismissing their Writ Petition No. 362/82. Even otherwise, the impugned order does not suffer from any legal or factual infirmity and we find no valid reason to interfere with the same. This Intra‑Court Appeal is, therefore, dismissed in limine. M. Y. M. Appeal dismissed.