1989SCMR703 (PLP)

JAVID IQBAL, J.‑‑This petition for leave is directed against judgment dated 30th November, 1982 passed by Lahore High Court, Lahore whereby writ petition of the predecessor‑in‑interest of the petitioners was dismissed. Briefly the facts are that the disputed land was allotted to Subedar Iftikhar Ali Khan, predecessor‑in‑interest of the petitioners, under Sheep Breeding Scheme for a period of fifteen years in 1953. The lease expired in 1969. Request for grant of proprietary rights was rejected and writ petition in that behalf was dismissed in 1973. Another writ petition was filed and in the meantime the Minister concerned issued a general stay order whereupon writ petition was withdrawn. However the Board of Revenue allotted the land to Havaldar Nizamul Haq in 1975, stay order in favour of Subedar Iftikhar Ali Khan was vacated, and the new allottee was delivered possession. In 1976 the Government decided to confer proprietary rights on the lessees in possession under the Sheep Breeding Scheme. Subedar Iftikhar Ali Khan applied for the conferment. The Board of Revenue remitted the matter to the Settlement Officer, Thal who held that the subsequent allottee Havaldar Nizamul Haq was entitled to conferment of proprietary rights. The appeal as well as revision before the Additional Commissioner and Member, Board of Revenue having failed in 1977, Subedar Iftikhar Ali Khan filed writ petition which was dismissed as stated above. Hence the present petition. It was contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that Subedar Iftikhar Ali Khan remained in possession of the disputed land even after the lease had expired and even though it was allotted to the subsequent allottce, the actual possession still remained with him and therefore, the petitioners being his heirs were entitled to get the proprietary rights in accordance with the Government instructions of 1976. However, factually the position is that after the failure of revision petition of Subedar Iftikhar Ali Khan before the M.B.R. in 1977, he murdered Havaldar Nizamul Haq and as a result he was convicted and sentenced to death by the trial Court. But while his appeal was pending, he died his natural death in the jail. The lease in his favour had expired on 9 January, 1969. The land in question had been allotted to the subsequent allottee and possession was taken away from him on 15 January, 1975. Therefore, the conclusion of the High Court to the effect that even if the taking over of the possession be considered as symbolic, it amounted to an actual delivery of possession in favour of Havaldar Nizamul Haq (whom he had murdered) is unexceptionable, as on 3 September, 1976 when the Government made the decision of conferment of proprietary rights, the petitioners' predecessor‑in‑interest was neither lessee nor in possession under the aforesaid scheme. Hence he was not entitled to conferment of proprietary rights. Since this is the position, no case is made out for interference. The petition is accordingly dismissed. A.A.Q‑20/S Petition dismissed.