1991 PLP 660 (CLC)

Writ Petition No. 2964 of 1978, decided on 13th July, 1988. ‑‑‑‑ Ss. 10 & 24 ‑‑‑ Peasant Grant Scheme for allotment in Thal ‑‑‑ Petitioner having been allotted land in specified area did not go there, thus remaining permanently absent ‑‑‑ Petitioner's allotment was cancelled ‑‑‑ Petitioner failed to file appeal but after four years applied to Colonization Officer for restoration of Lots which was turned down ‑‑‑ Administrator Thal Development Authority however, regularised petitioner's allotment which was ultimately cancelled by Board of Revenue‑‑ Petitioner having filed Constitutional petition, case was remanded for fresh decision on merits ‑‑‑ No case had been established for regularisation of original allotment ‑‑‑ Revenue Record however, showed that petitioner and his father had been in possession of land in question for the last fifteen years and had developed the same fully ‑‑‑ Petitioner was, however, allowed to purchase land in question on market price, as on the date of present order provided Collector was satisfied that he had developed such land and was permanently residing thereon. Ch. Muhammad Abdul Saleem for Petitioner. The present petitioner riled a Writ Petition No.2964 of 1978 before the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, against the orders of EACO Layyah, dated 18‑5‑1978 whereby the said officer, quoting orders of Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue cancelled the allotment of Lot No.52 of Chak No. 492/TDA which had been regularized by Chairman, TDA, vide his orders dated 30‑7‑1970 in favour of Nazir Ali deceased. The High Court after due consideration had directed the undersigned to hear the petitioner and then pass fresh orders. Hence this petition.

2. I have heard the petitioner at length through his counsel and seen the record. Briefly the position is that 26 Colonists including the petitioner's father Hazar Ali deceased, were selected by the then Colonization Officer of Pakpattan in 1959 under the Peasant Grant Scheme for allotment in Thal and were allotted land in Chak No.212/TD. However, this land being earmarked for other permanent purpose, they were shifted to Chak No. 325/TDA. However the allottees did not go to the said Chak and remained permanently absent. Consequently the allotment orders were cancelled by the then Colonization Officer vide his Memorandum No. Thal/CW/325‑TDA/31127‑30 dated 2‑11‑1959. No appeals were riled by the ex‑allottees but after about 4 years they again applied for the restoration of lots to the Colonization Officer who turned down the request on 9‑3‑1963. Subsequently 14 persons out of the 26 original allottees including the petitioner's father requested on 31‑8‑1969 to the Administrator, TDA that they had taken over the possession of the lots in Chak No.492/TDA which may be regularised. Apparently, they managed to obtain favourable reports from lower officials, and the Administrator, TDA, regularised the allotment on 30‑3‑1,

970. On 31‑10‑1971 ten more of the allottees applied to the EACO, Layyah requesting for the restoration of their allotments. However after considering their request, the EACO, Layyah, Commissioner, Multan Division and ultimately the Board of Revenue did not agree and the allotment orders dated 30‑7‑1970 for lots in Chak No.492/TDA cancelled vide No.235 78/766‑TH III, dated 8‑5‑1978. The Board also ordered an enquiry to be held and the Commissioner, Multan Division forwarded the main files of allotments in Chak No.492/TDA to the Board through a registered parcel. These were reportedly lost in transit and are not traceable since then. Consequently full history of the case cannot be related with authenticity, but it is apparent that no allotment was made to the petitioner's father in Chak No.492/TDA and even the regularisation by the Administrator, TDA, was also cancelled by the Board of Revenue. A Writ Petition No. 413/1981 was filed by another allottee but was dismissed in limine by the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench in 1984. In the present writ petition however the High Court has remanded the case to the undersigned for hearing the petitioner as successor‑in‑interest to the deceased allottee Nazar Ali so that he could convince the undersigned of the merits of his case.

3. As discussed above no case has been established for regularisation of the' original allotment. However I notice, from the Revenue Record, that the petitioner/his father have been in possession of the impugned lot in Chak No.492/TDA, for the last 15 years. It is also claimed that they have developed it fully. In the circumstances although the petitioner has no claim but in view of the circumstances of the case he can purchase the impugned land on market price as on the date of present orders, provided the AC/Collector Chaubara is satisfied that the petitioner ha developed the land and is permanently residing therein. A.A./385/L Order accordingly.