2005 PLP 1801 (YLR)

M.R. Khalid Malik, Addl: A.-G. for the State. Muhammad Sohail Khokhar, Naib Tehsildar, Dunyapur. Farooq Ahmad, Colony Clerk, Dunyapur. Through this writ petition petitioner Islam-ud-Din has sought a direction to respondents to issue proprietary rights to the petitioner in view of Annex-C Notification No.3215-7913973-C-II dated 3-9-1979 and not to further alienate the disputed property to any person till final decision of this petition.

2. Brief facts in this case arc that petitioner was allotted Lot No.31, Khasra No.44 measuring 100 Kanals situated in Chak No.325/WB Tehsil Dunyapur District, Lodhran by the Assistant Commissioner/Collector, Lodhran vide order dated 29-5-1975 which, from time to time was extended and petitioner made developments on the disputed land. Afterwards Government of the Punjab issued Notification dated 3-9-1979 whereby it was observed that the lessees holding Government land before Kharif 1977 be granted proprietary rights upon which petitioner applied vide his application to the District Collector which was refused. Petitioner filed Writ Petition No.5852 of 1980 which was dismissed and petitioner filed Intra-Court Appeal No.24 of 1981 which was disposed of with the observation that if the appellant was entitled to conferment of proprietary rights in terms of Notification No.3215-79/3973-C-II dated 3-9-1979 he should apply or pursue his earlier application for conferment of proprietary rights before the Collector. If the land happened to be Charagah land or located within prohibited zone, he should apply for extension of the lease under the instructions issued vide Notification No.5322-81/2053-C-II dated 30-7-1981. Upon which petitioner approached the District Collector, Multan who appointed Tehsildar, Lodhran as local commission who reported vide his report dated 11-8-1988 that disputed land was situated more than three miles away from Town Committee, Dunyapur. In the meanwhile the petitioner came to know that respondent No-3 had fixed the date for open auction of disputed land which is illegal and ultra vires hence this writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled for the proprietary rights in view of report submitted by the Local Commission. Further submits that vide Notification Annexure C the respondents are bound to grant proprietary rights in favour of the petitioner. That the District Collector has illegally and wrongly dismissed the application of petitioner for the grant of proprietary rights.

4. Parawise comments and report was called from the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 according to which the petitioner has not sought further extension from 1975-76 and he was not self-cultivator on the disputed land therefore, his application for proprietary rights was turned down. That the petitioner was not himself in cultivating possession of the disputed land, therefore, he was not entitled to proprietary rights in view of Notification No.3215-79/3973/C-II dated 3-9-1979 and his application was rightly dismissed by District Collector, Multan on 10-4-1991. That the disputed land was situated within the limits of Town Committee.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Main stance of the petitioner is that he was allotted the disputed land in the year 1975 and the same is in his possession cultivating since then. According to the Notification No.3215-79/3973-C-II dated 3-9-1979 he is eligible for the proprietary rights. When he applied for proprietary rights to the District Collector, Multan, local commission was issued who submitted his report according to which disputed property was situated within three miles of Town Committee, Dunyapur. Petitioner is admittedly in possession of the disputed land since 1975. This writ petition was dismissed for non -prosecution vide order dated 29-9-2004 and was also restored to its original number vide order dated 5-4-2005 and during that period petitioner's possession over the disputed land was allegedly disturbed. Petitioner is entitled for restoration of his possession under Temporary Leases Scheme. However, as the property in dispute is situated within the prohibitory zone so no case for proprietary rights is made out.

6. With these observations instant writ petition stands disposed of. H.B.T./I-88/L Order accordingly.