1998 PLP 575 (MLD)

Muhammad Amin Lone, A. A.G., Punjab for Respondents. Date of hearing: 31st March, 1997. Petitioner claims to be a lessee of the disputed land under ten years' scheme issued by the respondent-Board under section 10 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912. It is asserted that on the expiry of ten years' period in 1978-79, the petitioner applied for extension for five years as permitted under the subsequent instructions of the Board of Revenue, but this extension was wrongly denied to the petitioner. It is asserted that later on petitioner applied for transfer of proprietary rights and this application (copy Annexure "L") has not been dealt with by the respondents.

2. In the report and para-wise comments submitted by respondents, it is stated that under, the instructions then prevailing, petitioner was not entitled to any extension in the lease. It is denied that any application of the petitioner for grant of proprietary rights was received in time.

3. In so far as the question as to whether the petitioner ought to have been granted extension of five years is concerned, the same has become redundant. This petition instituted in the year 1980, remained pending in this Court for the last about 17 years. During all this period the petitioner has remained in possession on account of status quo order issued by this Court and has been utilizing the profits of the land. This prayer has, therefore, become irrelevant in view of the passage of time.

4. The examination of Annexure "L" (copy of the application for grant of proprietary rights) reveals that the same is a photocopy and does not bear any receipt number or signatures of the receiving authority. Petitioner has been unable to show as to whom it was delivered and on what date. In view of this, the assertion made in the para-wise comments that no such application was received, seems to be prima facie correct and no order for grant of proprietary rights, therefore, can be passed. Resultantly, this petition has no merit and is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

5. Since the petition is being dismissed, the petitioner is liable to account for and pay the mesne profits for the use and occupation of the land by him since, 14-5-1981, the date on which the status quo was directed to be maintained in favour of the petitioner on his furnishing adequate security for the mesne profits to the satisfaction of respondent No. 3.

6. It is clarified this judgment will not debar the petitioner from laying claim to the disputed land, if under the law/instructions presently applicable, the petitioner has any such right. Disposed of. A.A./B-28/L Petition dismissed.