P L D 2004 Lahore 521 (PLP)

The letter to which reference has been made above, has been placed on record on Court direction and makes an instructive reading which is reproduced below:‑‑ "No. 1021‑88/780/LR(II) Board of Revenue, Punjab. Lahore, dated the 2nd May, 1988. From The Board of Revenue, Punjab. To

1. All Commissioners in the Punjab.

2. All Deputy Commissioners/Settlement Officers in the Punjab. Subject: Purchase of Evacuee property by the Provincial Government. Muhammad Arshad Malik, Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore. Memorandum: Board of Revenue's Memorandum No.5372‑85/825‑CSI, dated the 13th March, 1986, stated that the residuary evacuee property having been sold to the Provincial Government by the Central Government as required under section 3 of the Repealed Act, 1975 (Act 14 of 1975) and the price having since been paid by the Provincial Government it became the property of the latter Government. Consequently, this land should now be shown under the ownership of the Provincial Government instead of the Central Government, in the Record of Rights with the description. The description was to be discarded in the next edition of Record of Rights.

2. However, on reconsideration it is felt that the said land is to be dealt with and disposed of in accordance with the two schemes framed under the repealed Act of 1975 (Act 14 of 1975). Consequently, it is necessary to distinguish this land from the other Provincial Government's lands till claims under the schemes are finally exhausted.

3. It is, therefore, directed that in respect of all such residuary evacuee properties a note should be recorded in the remarks column of the current. Register Haqdaran Zamin by entering the words. As regards the next revised edition of the Register Haqdaran Zamin the words "Central Government" in the ownership column should be substituted by the words and such entries will continue till further orders.

4. A strict compliance of the above instructions may kindly be ensured under confirmation to this office at the earliest. (Sd.) (Mian Ehsanul Haq), Secretary (Revenue) Board of Revenue, Punjab."

9. No challenge is being thrown to evacuee claim of predecessor -in‑interest of respondents No.4 to

9. Admittedly, the land in question was allotted vide the impugned order pursuant to the observation of the august Supreme Court in Civil Petition No.54‑L of 1991. The only objection of petitioners was that this land could not been allotted under the evacuee scheme. The reference of petitioners' learned counsel to para.29 of the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme is of no avail as much water has flown since the passage of the afore‑referred scheme and after the Repeal Act, 1975, the matters have to be dealt with in terms thereof. Section 3 of the Repealed Act, 1975 (Act 14 of 1975); inter alia, stipulates as under:‑ "

29. Right to be given in accordance with entries in Jamabandis.‑‑ Rights under the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme should be given to a claimant in accordance with the entries in the special Jamabandis received from the prescribed area ok India. Classification of evacuee land should be taken into account according to the entries in the variations in the classification of soil should be ignored. If any hardship is caused by the application of this rule in individual cases a reference should be made to the Rehabilitation Commissioner, West Pakistan) Reference former Punjab Government Memorandum No.8553‑R (L), dated 2nd September, 1950)".

10. The Provincial Government, in terms of para 2 of the letter dated 2nd May, 1988, has allotted the land through its Notified Officer and no exception can be taken to it. Even otherwise, petitioners, who are in cultivating possession on a temporary cultivation scheme, cannot make a grievance against the allotment of the said land under a permanent scheme. In Khuda Bakhsh v. Member (Colonies). Board of Revenue and 3 others (1981 SCMR 1134), the august Supreme Court, at page 1135, quoted with approval a judgment of this Court wherein it was held as under:‑‑ "Therefore, I am clear in my mind that temporary leases granted to any person can be terminated even before the expiry of the lease period of the land is required for any permanent scheme or for any public purpose. Similarly, a person whose land has already been included in the Schedule for allotment on permanent basis or whose land has been allotted to any other person under permanent scheme, cannot claim the acquisition of proprietary rights on the basis of the letter dated 3rd September, 1979. On the view I have taken I am supported by the judgment of this Court dated 31‑3‑1976 in Writ Petition No.414 of 1970."

11. Although petitioner had no vested right yet he has been prolonging his possession of the land initially by filing a civil suit and then this petition to the utter dismay of the respondent allottees under a permanent scheme.

12. For what has been discussed above I do not see any merit in this petition which is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. S.A.K./A‑46/L Petition dismissed.