1989SCMR633 (PLP)

Malik Amjad Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Mahdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 15th November, 1988. JAVID IQBAL J.‑‑This petition for leave is directed against judgment of the Lahore High Court Lahore, dated 16th November, 1983 whereby writ petition of the petitioner was dismissed. Briefly the facts are that the petitioner was allotted land in dispute under the Ejected Tenants Scheme in 1956. In 1960 another scheme was enforced to grant proprietary rights to the allottees, excluding areas situate within 10 miles of limits of first class Municipal Committees and 5 miles in the case of others. In 1966 a direction was issued to the effect that the municipal limits as existing at the time of passing of the final order for the grant of proprietary rights should be kept in view. Since the land in dispute allotted to the petitioner was situate within 10 miles of Municipal Committee, Faisalabad, a first class committee, it was resumed in 1965. However, the tenancy In favour of the petitioner was converted into a 15 years lease and he retained its possession. In 1972 the Board of Revenue reduced the prohibited belt of First Class Municipal Committees to 5 miles from their outer limits. Thereupon, the petitioner applied in 1974 to convert his lease into the old allotment under the Ejected Tenants Scheme to grant him proprietary rights there under. Unfortunately for the petitioner, his application remained pending up till 3July, 1975. But in the meantime on 6 June, 1975 the Municipal Committee, Faisalabad was upgraded as a Corporation and the prohibited zone was again extended to 10 miles limit, and as a result the petitioner's application was rejected."-On appeal Additional Commissioner remanded the petitioner's case for reconsideration. The appeal of the petitioner was accepted by the Additional Commissioner but on the revision filed by the State, the Member, Board of Revenue again turned down the petitioner's prayer. Finally he challenged the order of the Member Board of Revenue etc. by way of writ petition which was dismissed as stated above. Hence the present petition. Learned counsel contended that the application of the petitioner was pending and that the failure on the part of the staff to dispose of his petition made within time should not be allowed to operate harshly as against him. But 1 this argument is without any force. There is no provision of law which could preclude the Board, of Revenue from altering the limits of the Municipal Committees or of the prohibited zones. The High Court therefore was correct in arriving at the conclusion that the petitioner had lost his status as an allottee under the Ejected Tenants Scheme in 1965 when the land in dispute was resumed because it was located within the prohibited zone. Thus, qua the petitioner the transaction had become closed and there was no right available to him to move for re-conversion of his lease into that type of tenancy which had since ceased to exist. Since this is the position, no case is made out for interference. The petition is accordingly dismissed. AA./M‑693/S????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Leave to appeal refused.