1989 PLP 4487 (MLD)

Sh. Hakim Ali for Petitioner. Through this Constitutional petition Abdul Rashid wants this Court to declare the order dated 16‑7‑1985 of Member (Colony) Board of Revenue Punjab, Lahore, to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.

2. The facts leading to this petition as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner briefly are that the land measuring 100 canals situate in Chak No.24/B.C. was allotted to the petitioner under Five Years Scheme from 1979 to 1984. The possession of the land was given to him on 14‑1‑1979. Feeling aggrieved thereby, h1uhammad Hussain and Ghulam Muhammad filed appeal before Additional Commissioner which was allowed on 15 9‑1979. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed revision before Member Board of Revenue which wits dismissed on 16‑12‑1979. On this the petitioner filed suit for declaration of his rights over the disputed land and also challenged the legality of the orders of the Additional Commissioner as well as of the Member, Board of Revenue. The suit was dismissed by the Civil Court on 30‑4‑1980. The appeal filed by the petitioner against this judgment and decree failed on 4‑3‑1984. On 19‑5‑1984, the petitioner filed application before the Deputy Commissioner/Collector, Bahawalpur for grant of proprietary rights to him under Notification dated 20‑4‑1983. This application wits dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner on 1‑12‑1984. The appeal tiled by the petitioner against this order was dismissed by Additional Commissioner, Bahawalpur respondent No.3 on 14‑2‑1985. The revision filed by the petitioner against these orders was dismissed by Member, Board of Revenue on 16‑7‑1985, hence this petition.

3. The learned counsel relied upon Notification No.1925‑83/1253‑C/LI, dated 20‑4‑1983, issued under subsection (2) of Section 10 of the Colonization of Government Lands Punjab Act, 1912 to contend that the application of the petitioner for grant of proprietary rights should have been allowed by the Deputy Commissioner/Collector and as such there was no justification for Additional Commissioner to dismiss appeal against the order of the Deputy Commissioner and for the learned Member, Board of Revenue to dismiss revision against the order of the Additional Commissioner. The learned counsel further submitted that since the petitioner was allottee as well as occupier of the disputed land under Five Years Scheme, therefore, he was entitled to the grant of proprietary rights.

4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner with care. I have not been able to persuade myself to agree with him. I find that the petitioner had filed suit for declaration with regard to his entitlement to the allotment of the disputed land and had also questioned the legality of the orders of the Additional Commissioner, whereby the allotment of the disputed land was cancelled from his name. The petitioner had also challenged in that suit the legality of the order of the Member, Board of Revenue, dated 16‑12‑1979. This suit was dismissed by the Civil Court. The appeal against this judgment and decree was also dismissed by the Appellate Court. The petitioner did not file any revision against the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge and as such it cannot be said that he was allottee of the disputed land or that the allotment of the land was illegally cancelled from his name by the learned Additional Commissioner Bahawalpur. The Revenue Authorities have concurrently held that he was not tenant of the disputed land and as such was not entitled to the grant of proprietary, rights under the Notification dated 20‑4‑1983. I do not see any valid reason on record to differ with the conclusion arrived at by the Revenue Authorities. It may be noted that the petitioner was not non‑owner tenant of the disputed land at the time of the issuance of Notification. The disputed land had already been cancelled from his name in the year 1979. In the circumstances of the case, the petitioner was not entitled to the grant of proprietary rights under Notification relied upon by him.

5. For what has been said above, there being no merit, the petition is dismissed in limine. H.B.T./A‑739/L Petition dismissed.