2026 PLP 223 (CLC)

BABAR AMAN BABAR, MEMBER (JUDICIAL-I).

Brief facts of the case are that the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue), Sahiwal resumed the state land measuring 104-Kanals situated in Chak No. 150/9L, Tehsil and District Sahiwal in favour of the state, vide order dated 10.01.2023, and directed the Assistant Commissioner, Sahiwal to impose tawan against the illegal occupants of the said land after proper assessment. Feeling aggrieved, the respondents assailed the said order before the learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Sahiwal Division. The appeal was accepted vide order dated 14.04.2023. Hence, the instant revision petition.

2. The Colony Clerk reported on behalf of the State. The contents of the revision petition have also been considered as report on behalf of the state. The contents of the petition states that Sardar Muhammad son of Ghulam Muhammad was allotted the state land measuring 104-Kanals comprising Khasra Nos. 84//13 to 25 under Temporary Cultivation Lease Scheme for 05 years from Kharif 1975 to Rabi 1980. That Sardar Muhammad also succeeded to get allotment of another piece of land under the same Scheme in Chak No. 156/9L. That as per policy in vogue, he was entitled to be allotted only one lot of 12-1/2 acres under Temporary Cultivation Lease Scheme. That accordingly, the land allotted in Chak No. 150/9L was cancelled from his name and resumed in favour of the state. That this resumed land was further leased out to one Qasim Ali son of Atta Muhammad under the same scheme. That after expiry of lease period, that land was reverted back to the state on 17.04.2010 and included in the scheme of Agricultural /Veterinary/Forestry Graduates. That Bashir Ahmad, predecessor in interest of the present respondents, who was the real brother of Sardar Muhammad, applied for grant of proprietary rights of the land in Chak No. 150/9L, claiming himself as sub-tenant of his brother. That the request of Bashir Ahmad was rejected by the District Collector, Sahiwal vide order dated 20.10.1980. That the appeal against the said order was also dismissed by the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Multan Division, Multan vide order dated 03.12.1980. That a revision petition was preferred against the said order in the Board of Revenue, Punjab, which was also dismissed, vide order dated 12.02.1981. Hence, the same attained finality. Later on, after availing all remedies, Bashir Ahmad filed a civil suit and got an ex-parte decree in his favour vide order dated 09.03.1982. That the Province of Punjab assailed the said ex-parte/fraudulent decree dated 09.03.1982 under section 12(2) of the C.P.C. which remained unsuccessful. That Bashir Ahmad also filed execution petition for implementation of the said decree on 01.12.1984. The said petition was dismissed on 04.09.1985, and the said order was not further challenged. That the said decree dated 09.03.1982, thus, became redundant being time barred and the same is not in field and has no legal affect in the eyes of law. That Bashir Ahmad filed a W. P. No. 8424/2010 in the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan for implementation of the said decree dated 09.03.1982. The writ was remanded on 06.10.2015 to the District Officer (Revenue), Sahiwal with the direction to decide the matter within 03 months after hearing all the concerned parties. That in compliance of the remand order, the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue), Sahiwal dismissed the application of Bashir Ahmad vide order dated 30.05.2017. That Bashir Ahmad filed another W. P. No. 14810/2017, which was decided on 21.02.2019 and the case was again remanded to the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue), Sahiwal for decision afresh. That the matter was again decided on 10.01.2023 and the application of Bashir Ahmad was rejected. That the respondents preferred appeal against the said order before the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Sahiwal Division, Sahiwal, who accepted the appeal against the law, facts and record, and declared the respondents' predecessor entitled for grant of proprietary rights. That the impugned order is liable to be set aside. In the end, it was prayed to accept the revision petition.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that Sardar Muhammad son of Ghulam Muhammad, real brother of Bashir Ahmad, predecessor in interest of the respondents, was allotted the state land measuring 104-Kanals under Temporary Cultivation Lease Scheme for 05 years from Kharif 1975 to Rabi 1980. That Sardar Muhammad did not cultivate the allotted land and given the same to Bashir Ahmad as sub-tenant. That Bashir Ahmad after spending huge money and hard labour made the land cultivable, and deposited the government dues regularly. That the Board of Revenue, Punjab, vide Notification dated 03.09.1979, issued direction for grant of proprietary rights of the allotted lands to those allottees who himself or through sub-tenant cultivated the lands. That Bashir Ahmad being sub-tenant applied for grant of proprietary rights of the disputed land, which was rejected by the District Collector, Sahiwal, vide order dated 20.10.1980. That the appeal and revision against the said order were also dismissed vide orders dated 03.12.1980 and 12.02.1981. That Bashir Ahmad filed a civil suit, and the civil court decreed the disputed land in his favour, vide order dated 09.03.1982. That the application and revision against the said decree filed by the Province of Punjab were dismissed vide orders dated 19.12.1989 and 04.12.1990. That Bashir Ahmad filed Writ Petition No. 148810/2017 in the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan for implementation of the said decree dated 09.03.1982, which was decided on 21.02.2019 with the direction to the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue), Sahiwal for decision afresh within 30 days. That the Additional Deputy Commissioner, vide order dated 10.01.2023, again rejected the application of Bashir Ahmad by declaring that Bashir Ahmad or his legal heirs are not lessee of the land and could not be granted proprietary rights of the disputed land. That Bashir Ahmad submitted application under clause 13 (4) of the Notification dated 03.09.1979, contending that he was entitled to be granted proprietary rights of the disputed land. That the orders dated 04.12.1990 of the Additional Session Judge have attained finality, as the state did not challenge the said order in the High Court. That the Revenue Authorities in the light of order of the Civil Judge, Sahiwal and Additional District Judge, Sahiwal are bound to grant proprietary rights of the disputed land to the respondents. He relied upon 2022 YLR 644, 2008 SCMR 1658, 2011 YLR 1759, 1972 SCMR 322, 2019 CLC 1380 and PLD 1988 Revenue

24. That the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Sahiwal Division, Sahiwal, after hearing all the parties and perusal of record rightly accepted the appeal and passed the impugned order in accordance with the law. That the impugned order is liable to be upheld. In the end, he prayed for dismissal of the revision petition.

4. I have considered the arguments advanced by representative of the state and learned counsel for the respondents. Record available with the case file, as well as the impugned orders passed by the lower courts, have also been perused at length. Mr. Bashir Ahmad, Colony Clerk, representative of the State also appeared and produced the record.

5. It is clear from the above mentioned facts and the record that Sardar Muhammad son of Ghulam Muhammad was allotted the state land measuring 104-Kanals comprising Khasra Nos. 84//13 to 25 under Temporary Cultivation Lease Scheme for 05 years from Kharif 1975 to Rabi 1980. He also secured another allotment of land under the same Scheme in another Chak No. 156/9L. Accordingly, the land allotted in Chak No. 150/91 was cancelled from his name and resumed in favour of the state, and further leased out to one Qasim Ali son of Atta Muhammad. After expiry of the lease period, the land was reverted back to the state on 17.04.2010 and included in the scheme of Agricultural/Veterinary/Forestry Graduates.

6. Later on, Bashir Ahmad, predecessor in interest of the present respondents, started litigation on frivolous grounds, which if accepted would open a whole new Pandora's Box. Bashir Ahmad was neither allotted the land in dispute nor he was a sub-tenant. Bashir Ahmad claim that his brother, Sardar Ahmad had appointed him sub-tenant of the disputed land. The request of Bashir Ahmad for grant of proprietary rights on this plea was rejected by the District Collector. Sahiwal vide order dated 20.10.1980. The appeal and revision by Bashir Ahmad were also dismissed vide orders dated 03.12.1980 and 12.02.1981. Learned Member order dated 12.02.1981 read as follows:- "The revision petition has been filed against the order dated 03.12.1980 of Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Multan by which he rejected the appeal of the petitioner and upheld the order dated 29.07.1980 and 26.10.1980 of District Collector, Sahiwal leasing out the land in dispute to one Qasim Ali,

2. Briefly, one Sardar Muhammad held two lots on Temporary Cultivation, one in Chak No. 150/9-L and the other in 156/9-L. He was allowed to acquire property rights in the lot of Chak No. 156/9-L while the lot of Chak No. 150/9-L was on expiry of lease, further leased out by auction, in favour of one Qasim Ali for five years on 20.07.1980. The petitioner who cultivated this lot as tenant of Sardar Muhammad applied for grant of proprietary rights in it, but his request was rejected on 26.10.1980. The petitioner felt aggrieved and filed two separate appeals before the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Multan who dismissed the same on 03.12.1980 with the following observations:- "As far as the auction of the suit land is concerned, no good evidence has been led before me to indicate whether (sic) proper publicity was not made. The proper person could be a Lambardar, Chokidar or Co-tenants or other proprietary (sic) of Chak. Thus I have to presume that the auction on the part of the learned Collector was exactly in accordance with law and in the absence of any material to the contrary nothing also (sic) can be said. Thus the plea of the appellant is rejected, as regards the second plea regarding the grant of proprietary rights as sub tenants on the suit property, it would be noticed that a perusal of the Khasra Girdawari regarding the suit land is allotted (sic) that the present appellant and his brother and (sic) both recorded is lessees of the suit land. I have no record to doubt the entries in the Khasra Girdawari and because of these entries the appellants could not be held to be a tenant but co-tenants. (sic) if these entries are incorrect the appellants would have but thus corrected accordingly. (sic) Presently however, he is not recorded as tenant and thus he cannot be treated sub-tenant for the purposes of the Scheme introduced on 03.09.1979. Hence this revision petition.

3. I have (heard) the learned counsel for the petitioner at length and have also gone through impugned order. Two proprietary rights under Government Notification dated 03.09.1979 and (sic) be claimed only by regular lessees who having (sic) been cultivating the leased out since before Kharif 1977. The case of the petitioner is not covered (under) the said notification. The revision petition is therefore dismissed." After disposal of the revision petition of Bashir Ahmad in Board of Revenue, Punjab, Bashir Ahmad did not challenge the same in the High Court, hence, the matter attained finality.

7. Bashir Ahmad then filed a civil suit and got an ex-parte decree in his favour from the Civil Court vide order dated 09.03.1982. The said ex-parte decree was assailed by the Province of Punjab but the Additional District Judge, vide order dated 04.12.1990, did not accept the same. Bashir Ahmad then filed execution petition for implementation of the said decree on 01.12.1984, which was dismissed on 04.09.1985. The said order was also not further challenged hence the same also attained finality.

8. It is also on record that the petitioner twice approached the High Court with same requests but both times the Hon'ble High Court remanded the case to the District Collectors for decision afresh as per law, rules, policy, instead of passing any definite order regarding implementation of any civil court order. He filed W. P. No. 8424/2010 in the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan. The writ was remanded on 06.10.2015 to the District Officer (Revenue), Sahiwal with the following direction:- "

3. Resultantly, let a copy of this writ petition along with copies of Annexures B, B-1 and B-2 annexed therewith be transmitted to respondent No. 1/District Officer Revenue, Sahiwal with a direction to decide the said applications of the petitioner, if pending strictly in accordance with law through a speaking and well reasoned order after hearing all the concerned, if required preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of order of this Court." In compliance of the said remand order, the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue), Sahiwal dismissed the application of Bashir Ahmad vide order dated 30.05.2017, on the ground that the land in question is not allotted to him and his status does not fall within the definition of sub-tenant. Bashir Ahmad assailed that order by filing another Writ Petition No. 14810/2017, which was decided on 21.02.2019 on statement of Bashir Ahmad that:- "Learned counsel for petitioner after arguing the case at some length, submits that he would be satisfied if copy of this writ petition along with its annexures is sent to respondent No. 1 with the direction to treat it as representation and decide it strictly in accordance with law within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, after hearing the petitioner and all concerned, through a speaking order, under intimation to Deputy Registrar (Judl.) of this Court.

2. When confronted, learned Law Officer has not opposed the request of learned counsel for petitioner.

3. Order accordingly, Disposed of"

9. After remand, the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue), Sahiwal, after hearing all the concerned, again dismissed the application of Bashir Ahmad vide order dated 10.01.2023.

10. The counsel for the petitioner was specifically asked to prove his claim in the light of facts mentioned above and that how after dismissal of his execution petition which had not been further challenged and remand of his case by the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 21.02.2019 to the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue), Sahiwal for decision afresh, he can assert that decision of the Additional District Judge is still in field. But he failed to rebut the facts.

11. It is concluded that the allotment of the disputed land was cancelled from the name of Sardar Ahmad as he had secured double allotment of land. The lease period of the disputed land was expired in 1980, and the same was not further extended. Therefore, it is held that Sardar Ahmad had no locus standi to appoint Bashir Ahmad as sub-tenant of the disputed land, as he could not retain the said land, and could not sub-let the same. Moreover, the respondents could not provide order of any competent authority labeling them as sub-tenants or allottees of the land in question. Rather, repeated orders of the revenue authorities were passed against them. The counsel for the respondents only emphasized upon implementation of the order of Additional District Judge dated 04.12.1990 without appreciating the non-disputed facts that the same cannot be implemented after 35 years specially when the respondents' execution decree was dismissed and the same was never challenged. Moreover, the Hon'ble High Court twice remanded the case to district authorities without ordering to implement the Additional District Judge order dated 04.12.1990 and the revenue authorities gave concrete plausible and legal justifications in favour of resumption of the state land which could not be rebutted by the counsel for the respondents or the respondents. The Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Sahiwal Division, Sahiwal by ignoring all these facts, instead of issuing order on merits, accepted the appeal against the facts and record, which is highly questionable and illegal. Thus, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

12. Apropos above, the revision petition having legal force and merit is hereby accepted. Resultantly, the impugned order dated 14.04.2023 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Sahiwal Division, Sahiwal is hereby set aside and order dated 10.01.2023 passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue), Sahiwal is upheld. The District Collector, Sahiwal is directed to resume the state land immediately, if in the illegal possession of the respondents, and tawan be also assessed and recovered. The Registrar, Board of Revenue, Punjab is directed to send a copy of this Order each to the Commissioner, Sahiwal Division, Sahiwal and District Collector, Sahiwal, for information and implementation of this order. The case file shall be consigned to the record room after its due compilation and completion. MQ/16/Rev Revision Allowed.