2002 PLP 2589 (YLR)

‑‑‑‑S.24‑‑‑Resumption of land being located in prohibited zone‑‑‑Question, whether such land was located within of outside prescribed limits‑‑‑Determination‑‑‑Measurement of distance strictly in accordance with prescribed conditions would not be of any avail, in cases where alleged location of land in question from the outer periphery of Municipal limits, in relation to laid down distance was marginal‑‑‑Use of modern in computing distance of land located within prescribed limits would only help to save hastle and time of both the affected parties and Revenue Field Staff‑‑ Measurement of distance by meter of Jeep not being described was unsafe to rely on‑‑‑District Collector might rely on survey maps maintained in his office indicating location of land in question from the outer limits of Municipality with distances of all squares/field numbers intervening the land and Municipal limits to cross check the reports of Field Staff existence or otherwise of land within or outside the prescribed limits by distance of diagonal connection the closet points of Municipal limits and such land‑‑‑Such exercise having not been done, Board of Revenue remanded case to District Officer (Revenue) to review the same in accordance with such parameters and instructions already prescribed after hearing the parties and examining Revenue Record leaving it to him to resume land, if it was called for. Syed Muhammad Anis Sadiq for Petitioner. This petition has been filed against the order dated 5‑12‑2000 passed by the Commissioner, Sargodha Division, Sargodha, whereby he accorded permission, to District Collector to review his predecessor's orders dated 23‑2‑1997 and 24‑2‑1998.

2. Briefly, the facts of this case are that the petitioner was granted proprietary rights of land measuring 99 Kanals comprising Khasra Nos. 16/5 to 7, 14 to 18, 23 to 23 situated in Chak No. 114/SB, Tehsil and District Sargodha under Notification dated 19‑3‑1995 by the D.C./District Collector vide order dated 23‑2‑1997 in spite of the fact the A.C./Collector, vide judicial order dated 13‑11‑1996, did not recommend the case for grant of proprietary rights on the basis of land' being located within prohibited zone. The petitioner was also allowed to deposit the sale price vide order dated 24‑2‑1998 determined in pursuance of remand order dated 17‑9‑1997 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Sargodha. The Deputy Commissioner, Sargodha on 5‑6‑2000 sought review of his predecessor's order dated 23‑2‑1997 and 24‑2‑1998 from the Commissioner, Sargodha Division on the ground that the land in dispute fell within the prohibited zone of Cantonment Board, Sargodha. The learned Commissioner, vide impugned order dated 5‑12‑2000 accorded permission to review these orders. Hence this revision petition.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have examined the record. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Municipal Authority and Cantonment Executive Officer had issued certificate at the time of conferment of proprietary rights to the petitioner that the land in question was located outside the municipal limits. It is further contended that the distance has been measured on a jeep against the procedure prescribed in the Settlement Manual. It is argued that the limits of Cantonment Board were curtailed on 30‑11‑1981 but this fact has not been taken into consideration by the Deputy Commissioner while making reference and while passing the impugned order by the learned Commissioner' because this notification has not been incomorated in the Revenue Record. 'The site map showing the prohibited zone has also not prepared by the office excluding the land from the Gazette Notification dated 27‑10‑1981 redefined the boundaries vide said letter dated 30‑11‑1981. According to the learned counsel, the case of the petitioner has yet to be decided in review proceedings but the learned Commissioner has also ordered the resumption of the land in question.

4. I have considered the arguments adduced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and have examined the record available on the file and that produced by the representative of the District Collector, Sargodha. The learned counsel for the petitioner does riot contest the observation of the Commissioner that it is a fit case for review of District Collector's order dated 23‑2‑1997. However, the main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the measurement of the land in question has not been carried out in accordance with procedure prescribed in they Settlement Manual and the exclusion of land redefined, vide letter dated 30‑11‑1981 from the Notification dated 27‑10‑1981 has not been kept in view while deciding the petitioner's case. The contention that the distance be measured strictly in accordance with the prescribed conditions to examine whether the impugned land is within or outside the prescribed limits does have force in‑cases where the alleged location of the land in question from the outer periphery of Municipal limits in relation to the laid down distance is marginal. However, in glaring cases of land being located within the prescribed limits, the use of modern technology in computing the distance will only help save hastle and time of both the affected persons and the Revenue field staff. Since the Liability of the reading of the meter of the jeep by carrying out of sample check period to the measurement of the impugned land and the extent to which the land in question fell within the prescribed limits has not been described, the measurement of the distance by the meter of the jeep is unsafe to rely on.

5. The District Collectors, however, may rely on the survey maps maintained in their offices indicating the location of the land in question from the outer limits of Municipality with distances of all squares/field number intervening the land anti the Municipal limits to cross check the reports of the field staff regarding existence or otherwise of land within or outside the prohibited limits by computing the distance of diagonal connecting the closet points of Municipal limits and the land. The record does not revealed this to have been done. The case is accordingly remanded back to .the District Officer (Revenue), Sargodha to be reviewed in accordance with these parameters and the instructions prescribed already after hearing the parties and examining the relevant Revenue Record leaving it to him to resume the land, if it is called for. The petition is disposed of accordingly. S.A.K./49/Rev. Order accordingly.