P L D 1963 W (PLP)

This is a revision petition against order dated 7‑9‑1961 of the Additional Commissioner, Hyderabad Division.

2. The facts are that the Deputy Collector, Desert imposed remokal fine for the last 15 years upon the petitioners for cons tructing house unauthorizedly on Government waste land. Peti tioners preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Tharparkar who rejected it on 25‑12‑

62. They filed a second appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Hyderabad who also rejected it. The petitioners' main contentions are that :‑ the petitioners are residing in the present houses, since the last 30 years and these houses cannot be termed, encroachments, as the petitioners have right of easement of live there, especially since it is not a separate village. that the sanctioned area is 60 acres and these houses are within the sanctioned area. that no responsible Revenue Officer, has visited the site. Mukhtiarkar or Deputy Collector may varify these facts, after visiting the site and holding an enquiry. Their special application now is that their houses will now be pulled down.

3. I am not at all happy with the attitude of mind reflected in the learned Additional Commissioner's order. He seems to be displeased with the tendency of desert area people to build houses: "according to their choice, religious sentiments and social convenience". He has justified rejection of their appeal on the ground that there area "orders that the tendency of cons tructing scattered villages should be discouraged from the point of view of law and order and of development in social, educa tional, health and economic fields". He has made no reference to the petitioner's contention that they have actually built their houses within sixty acres allowed for their sanctioned village site. Even the report of D. C. Tharparkar which admits that the houses have been constructed about ten years ago without any objection from any body, has brushed aside the request for verification whether or not the houses are within the sanctioned site on the ground that "it is not necessary that every site is to be visited by the officers". The site plan prepared as a result of my calling for comments, shows that altogether 51‑36 acres of the village site have been built on. The actual demarcation of the sixty acres of sanctioned village site, is for some strange reasons not been marked on this site plan. If it is to scale it would show that piece (a) would still be somewhat outside the sanctioned village site. Since it is not likely to be more than 40 or 50 paces from the original goth, measuring 16‑20 acres, I can see no special objection to it being approved from any point of view 40 or 50 spaces is not a distance which is likely to cause difficulties in educational, health and other amenities to be provided to theses people. Lying in between the original goth and piece (a) inci dentally are the wells of the village, which are being conveniently utilized by the petitioners.

3. It is really distressing to come across such unsympathetic handling of problems of the cut‑off people of the desert area. I feel sorry because, in my opinion, some of the officers appear to have reflected less concern, in cases of this kind, requiring sympathetic consideration, than what they would normally give to the needs of their milch cattle or horses. It is to be hoped that in the Welfare State, which we all desire Pakistan to be, officialdom will rise above the old rut and take broad outlook of the needs particularly of residents of outlying tracts such as the Thar desert.

4. I have carefully considered the requirements of the present case. I would accept the revision to this extent that I would reduce the remokal fine by half and would direct that the confines of sixty acres, sanctioned for the village site may be demarcated on the site plan clearly and the boundaries may be extended so as to include piece (a) also, on the usual terms. K. M. A. Revision accepted.