2002 PLP 2587 (YLR)

‑‑‑‑Ss.24 & 30(2)‑‑‑General Colony Conditions, 1938, Cl. 9‑‑‑Complaint before Board of Revenue for cancellation of sale deed of allotted land on the ground that allottees had not installed industry during, past 15 years since allotment ‑‑‑Validity‑‑ Complainant had not contested installation of factory at site now‑‑‑General misconception was that no action could be taken by District Collector in cases, where a conveyance deed had been executed on the ground that same fell in purview of Board of Revenue‑‑‑Parameters of action under S.30(2) of the Act had been defined‑‑‑No case of fraud, conceal ment of fact or ineligibility was made out against the allottees‑‑‑Case was based on violation of terms and conditions of grant of lease, for which‑District Collector was competent to proceed against allottees under Cl. 9 of General Colony Conditions, 1938‑‑‑Board of Revenue disposed of reference in such terms and withdrew notices issued to allottees under S.30(2) of the Act with observations that District Collector might proceed against allottees or their legal heirs in accordance with law. Ahmad Nadeem Malik for the Vendees Nos. 1 to

4. Ch. Shamim Ahmad for the Vendees Nos.5, 6 and

7. This case has been taken up on judicial side for cancellation of sale‑deed in the name of respondents/allottee in respect of the plot comprising Khasra Nos.15361/1 and 15362/2 measuring 8 Kanals situated on G.T. Road in Sahiwal City due to violation of terms and conditions of the agreement.

2. Briefly, the facts of this case are that on the recommendation of the Deputy Director of Industries Multan Region, Multan on 2‑7‑1959 the Board of Revenue, vide letter dated 7‑10‑1960, accorded sanction to the sale of land measuring one Acre comprising Khasra Nos. 15361 /4055 and 15362/4054 situated in the Industrial area of Montgomary (now Shaiwal) in favour of Ghulam Muhammad and his brothers (namely Abdul Rahim, Fazal Din and Muhammad Ali) of Arifwala for setting up of a Workshop for Manufacturing spare parts etc. at the rate of Rs.20,000 per Acre plus 10% surcharge through sale by private treaty on the conditions that the vendees would pay 33‑1/2% of the price in advance and the balance in 10 equal half yearly instalments with interest at the rate of 4% per annum on unpaid balance by the due dates and Rs. 9 % per annum on instalments deposited after the due dates. The sale agreement was executed accordingly and registered at Serial No.751 dated 24‑6‑1963. Possession was also delivered to the allottees. One Mukhtar son of Noor Muhammad submitted a complaint in the Board of Revenue for cancellation of sales‑deed due to breach of terms and conditions but the same was rejected on 6‑2‑1980. Again a complaint was lodged on 5‑1‑1999 by one Mirza Abdur Rashid, resident of Railway Road Sahiwal for cancellation for the sales‑deed of the land in dispute on the ground that no industry had been installed by the allottee during the period of 16 years from 1963 and the allottees had sold out the plot in question to one Khair Muhammad for a consideration of Rs.2,00,000 who had sold it further to Abdul Haq etc. without obtaining permission from the competent Authority thus committed violation of the sale agreement.

3. The case was processed in the office on the executive side. It was found that the allottee had prima facie violated the terms and conditions of agreement. Accordingly, a notice under section 30(2) of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 was issued to the allottees. The original allottee namely Ghulam Muhammad is stated to have died and service of notice was accepted by his son Muhammad Sharif. The service of notice upon Abdur Rahim was accepted by his son Fayyaz Ahmad whereas the service of notices was made upon other allottees through Iftikhar Ahmad, Nazir Ahmad their nephews. The District Collector's report dated 31‑10‑2000 indicates that the service was effected upon nephews of the deceased allottees on 11th of October, 2000 by the Tehsildar on the last date of hearing directing them to appear on behalf of the original allottee. The service of notice was again accepted by Muhammad Sharif son of Ghulam Muhammad (deceased) allottee. The service of notice upon Abdur Rahim was accepted by his son Fayyaz Ahmad whereas the service of notices was effected upon other allottees through Iftikhar Ahmad, Nazir Ahmad, their nephews as per report dated 10‑2‑2001. He has also stated that they had sold the property in question to Khair Muhammad who had further transferred it to his sons namely Ghulam Muhammad, Sardar Muhammad and Muhammad Siddique. The property has thereafter been sold by the heirs of Khair Muhammad to Shafqat Javaid, Muhammad Raft and Muhammad Zaki who are‑now represented by Ch. Shamim Ahmad advocate. The complainant's counsel is not present. The allegation against the original allottees is that they did not install a factory over the allotted land for about 15 years. But it is not contested that a factory stands installed at site now. It is a general misconception that no action can be taken by the District Collector in cases where conveyance deed had been executed on the ground that it falls in the purview of Board of Revenue. The parameters of action under section 30(2) of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 have been defined. No case of fraud, misrepresentation, concealment of fact or, ineligibility is made out against the allottees. The case is based on violation of terms and conditions of grant of lease for which the District Collector is competent to proceed against the allottees under clause 9 of General Colony Conditions, 1938 for alleged violation of terms and conditions of lease. The reference is, therefore, disposed of accordingly. The District Collector may proceed against the allottees or legal heirs in accordance with the law. The notices issued to allottees under section 30(2) of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 are, therefore, withdrawn. S.A.K./48/Rev. Order accordingly.