2006 PLP 1447 (CLC)

MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.

This judgment shall decide Writ Petition No.3025 of 2005 and Writ Petition No.2492of 2005 as common questions are involved.

2. In order to implement Chief Minister's Programme for land to landless peasants of the Province, a notification was issued by the Provincial Government on 1-9-2003 (Annexure "D" to Writ Petition No.3025 of 2005). The applications were obtained and were scrutinized. A draw was held on 1-4-2004 and 26-3-2004 respectively in these two cases under the supervision of the Scrutiny Committee. The lands mentioned in these two writ petitions were accordingly allotted to the respective petitioners in these cases. The draw proceedings were recorded and so was a progress report in accordance with the manner prescribed in the said notification. The land was to be delivered and to be allotted to the said petitioners. However, this was not done and instead fresh draw proceedings were held on 27-4-2005 as a result whereof the said lands came to be allotted to the respondent No.3 respectively in these writ petitions.

3. Messrs M. Abdul Wadood and M. Riaz Jahania, Advocates/ learned counsel for the petitioners in these two cases argue that the draw proceedings having been duly conducted in accordance with the terms of the said notification and no defect of fault. having been found therewith, the official-respondents had no jurisdiction to conduct the second draw. Learned A.A.-G. states that the Chief Minister had nominated one Muhammad Aslam Awan, Ex.MPA, Lodhran, to the Supervisory Committee and the said nominee had complained that he was not associated in the said proceedings and a high level meeting was held in the Board of Revenue and the fresh proceedings were ordered. Messrs Masood Ahmad Dogar and Ch. Abdul Sattar Goraya, Advocates/learned counsel respectively for respondent No.3 in these cases while adopting the said reasoning of the learned A.A.-G. further contend that the draw could not have been undertaken without involvement of the Supervisory Committee.

4. I have gone through the file of these two cases. It will be seen that there is no allegation that any fraud was committed during the course of the said proceedings or that the petitioners in these two cases are not eligible to apply for grant of land under the Chief Minister's Programme in accordance with the terms of the said notification.

5. Now the procedure of allotment has been laid down in some under? para.8(xvii) of the said notification. It comprises of the following:-- Deputy District Officer (Revenue)???????????????????????????????? Chairman Tehsildar ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Member Lamberdar of Mouza concern ????????????????????????? Member Two notables of the village to be nominated ????? Members by the Government of the Punjab.

6. There is no objection whatsoever that the Scrutiny Committee which conducted the proceedings was not composed in the manner prescribed. Now the application for grant of land is to be made to the DDO(R) which is to be entered in a Register. The DDO(R) is required to hold personal inquiry as well as inquiry through the said Scrutiny Committee about eligibility of the applicant and if he is found eligible a certificate is to be recorded on the application and similarly if an applicant is inelligible the reasons are to be recorded. Para.8(ix) provides that selection of persons for allotment of land is to be made by drawing lots in the presence of Scrutiny Committee in the open Katchary, after due publicity. In the said Katchary, anyone can raise objections to the eligibility of an applicant which are to be disposed of by the Scrutiny Committee. The applications can be entertained even on the said day. Now in case somebody files a complaint against any process by the Scrutiny Committee then the DCO is required to refer the said complaint to the District Supervisory Committee. It is this latter Committee to which the said Muhammad Aslam Awan, Ex.MPA, was nominated by the Chief Minister.

7. Now it will be seen that there being no complaint against the process conducted by the Scrutiny Committee. There was no question of any reference to the District Supervisory Committee. There was no occasion for the said nominee to complain as the stage for his involvement never came.

8. As noted by me above, there is no complaint as to the eligibility of the two petitioners and the process conducted by the Scrutiny Committee constituted for the purpose. This being so, the act of the respondents in conducting the second draw is not valid. Both the writ petitions are allowed and the impugned order and the proceedings of said second draw conducted on 27-4-2005 in both these cases are hereby declared to be illegal, without lawful authority and are set aside. No orders as to costs. S.A.K./M-304/L????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petitions accepted.