1988 PLP 86 (MLD)

The petitioner was allotted 110 Kanals and 10 Maa la; of land Square No.39 under the Grow More Food Scheme in 1956. Allottees of Grow More Food Scheme of 1957 were permitted to purchase proprietary rights which benefit was not extended to the allottees of 1956. Scheme but on 26-4-1971, in response to a judgment of the High Court it was decided that the proprietary rights could be purchased by the allottees of Grow More Food Scheme without regard to the date of the allotment. The petitioner realising that he had become entitled to the grant of proprietary rights applied for them and prayed that he may be granted proprietary rights to Square No. 45 or to alternate land. This land was on lease with the father of the petitioner for these years w.e.f 24-9-1969 but had been allotted to Nawab din Lambardar in 1970 before the expiry of the lease in favour of the father of the petitioner. The petitioner challenged the order of allotment in favour of Nawab Dm Lambardar. The Commissioner accepted his appeal on 13-10-1971 and remanded the case to the Collector for fresh decision. On 4-1-1973 the Collector accepted the application of the petitioner for the grant of proprietary rights. An appeal was preferred against this order by Nawab Din Lambardar but it was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner on 5-3-1973. On further revision to the Board of Revenue, the learned Member cancelled the allotment in favour of the petitioner as according to him the original allotment in 1956 in favour of the petitioner in square No.39 was void ab imtio as the land in Square No. 39 was Charagah land and was already under cultivation. This order has been challenged in the present writ petition.

2. The short question which will determine the fate of this case is whether the initial allotment in favour of the petitioner in 1956 was open to objection or not as it is on that ground alone that the allotment made to the petitioner by the Collector in 1973 has been cancelled.

3. Apart from the other conditions which are not relevant for the purpose of the present case, 1956's Scheme provided for the allotment of State waste land, not previously leased out in compact bloc of 12 1/2% acres. This Scheme clearly does not talk of any embargo on allotment of land known as Charagah land. The observation of the learned Member that the land was Charagah and therefore not available for allotment is against the terms of the Scheme and cannot affect the A rights of the petitioner. The learned Member has also observed that the land in question was already under cultivation and therefore not allotable under the Scheme. This observation is also not correct as it is against the record. The land allotted to the petitioner in Square No. 39 was a compact bloc of 12 1/2 acres, more than 3/4th of which was Banjar Qadeem. This cannot be described as under I cultivation as observed by the learned Member. Even It a small portion of the compact bloc was 'nehri' as in the present case that will not change the nature of the land which is predominantly wasteland. The initial allotment of 1956 in favour of the petitioner therefore, was lawful and the petitioner is entitled to the benefits, which may arise as a result of it.

4. In view of the above considerations, I find that the orders of the Board of Revenue of 11-6-1977 are against law and record. These orders are declared to be of no legal effect. The writ petition is allowed with costs. M.Y.M./2235/L Petition allowed.