2002 PLP 2409 (YLR)

(b) West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967)‑

‑‑‑‑S. 42‑‑‑Khasra Girdawari‑‑‑Proof of possession‑‑‑Revenue Patwari's record of entries of Girdawari could be relied upon for purposes of possession. Sarfraz Ali Khan for Petitioners. The above two petitions have been filed by the petitioners in pursuance of order, dated 21‑5‑2001 passed by the Honourable Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench whereby the Writ Petitions Nos.5167 of 2000, 5169 of 2000, 5383 of 2000, 5384 of 2000, 5385 of 2000 and 5386 of 2000 filed by the petitioners were dismissed as having been withdrawn with the direction to the petitioners to approach the Board of Revenue within, a fortnight up to 6‑6‑2001 with a joint written application containing the contentions raised in the writ petition for disposal strictly in accordance with law and the policy of the Government prevailing for the time being. The petitioner's possession was also ordered to be not disturbed if they were in possession of the suit land till the expiry of the above said date.

2. Briefly, the facts of this case as borne out from the petition, are that the petitioners were selected as tenants by the Assistant Commissioner, Bahawalpur in 1976‑77 in Chak No.30/DNB and the files were sent to the District Collector, Bahawalpur for determination of whether this Chak fell in the Cholistan area or in a regular District. As per report received from the Cholistan Development Authority, Chaks No.26/DNB, 30/DNB and 31/DNB fall outside Cholistan area. Neither the confirmation of their allotments had been made nor proprietary rights /conveyance deeds have been issued by the District Collector although they are in possession of the land in question. The petitioners invoked writ jurisdiction by filing Writ Petitions Nos.5167 of 2000, 5169 of 2000, 5383 of 2000, 5384 of 2000, 5385 of 2000 and 5386 of 2000 in the Honourable Lahore High Court, Bhawalpur Bench. These writ petitions were dismissed on 21‑5‑2001 having been not pressed by the petitioners with the direction:‑‑ "the petitioners to approach the Member Board of Revenue (Colonies) Punjab, Lahore/ respondent No.3 within a fortnight i.e. 6‑6‑2001 with a joint written applications containing the contentions raised in these writ petitions and the said respondent, if approached will dispose of the application of the petitioners strictly in accordance with law and the policy of the Government prevailing for the time being. " Accordingly, the petitioners have filed these two petitions, which were sent to the Secretary (Colonies) on 14‑6‑2001 for examination on the executive side. The cases were fixed in Peshi on receipt of a report from the office.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and have also examined the record. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the dispute arose whether the land in question was included in the Colony area of District Bahawalpur or fell in the territory of Cholistan Development Authority. It is stated that no orders were passed on the petitioners' applications for grant of proprietary rights under the Notification dated 3‑9‑1979 by the District Collector for want of a decision regarding location of the land. It was alleged that in identical cases pertaining to Chaks Nos.27/DNB and 31/DNB the land had been allotted to the landless tenants and discriminatory treatment was being metted out to the petitioners. He contended that the petitioners were given leases under five years Temporary Cultivation Lease Scheme and they are in occupation of the land in question for the last 25/26 years. He argued that the petitioners were prepared to fulfil the terms and conditions of the Scheme. He stated that the allotment orders issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Bahawalpur were lawful which create the rights in favour of the petitioners.

4. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners and have examined the record available on the file. I have also gone through the reports dated 15‑10‑2001 of the Assistant District Officer (Revenue) Bahawalpur. According to the statement dated 18‑10‑2001 recorded by Mr. Muhammad Ghafoor, Colony Clerk, Representative of the District Officer (Revenue), Bahawalpur, the documents annexed with the petitions were forged. Certified copies of these documents had not been issued from the Copying Branch of the then Deputy Commissioner's Office. The serial Nos.1461 to 1544 of Register CD‑2 maintained in the Copying Agency had been removed to benefit the petitioners. He further stated that no such allotments had been made to the petitioners by any competent Authority the learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to produce any copy of the original bid sheet or even a copy of order under section 10(4) of. the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 under which the land in question was formally given to the petitioners. No copy of the extract from the daily diary register of the relevant estate regarding delivery of possession to the petitioners under the District Collector's order of allotment has been produced either. Reliance has been placed on copies of entries of Khasra Girdawari prepared by Canal Patwari. The Khasra Girdawari prepared by Patwari (Revenue) does not show the possession of the petitioners over the land claimed to be in their possession. The Canal Patwari's record of Girdawari does not lend support to the petitioners legitimacy of allotment of the land in question. The documents produced by the petitioners in support of their contentions do not find any corroboration from the record. It is the Revenue Patwari's record of entries of B Girdawari that can be relied upon for purposes of possession. It is not understand able as to how the Canal Patwari entered the possession of the petitioners in his Girdawari without a valid order of allotment that should have formed the basis of inclusion of their names in the list of persons eligible for irrigation of their land through canal water. This arrangement smacks of complicity of the Canal Department staff with the petitioners and does not inspire confidence. No grounds are made out for grant of any relief to the petitioners at this stage. The petitions are not maintainable and are rejected accordingly. S.A.K./59/Rev. Petitions rejected.