2004 PLP 215 (CLC)

Ss. 10 & 30

Lease of land under Temporary Cultivation Scheme-- Proprietary rights, grant of--Request of lessee for grant of proprietary rights in respect of land leased out to him under Temporary Cultivation Scheme, was finally turned down on the ground that land in question being Charagah land, proprietary rights for such land was not permissible under the policy of Board of Revenue

Grant of proprietary rights to the lessees, was governed by the policy framed by the Board of Revenue on the subject

No Policy of Board of Revenue existed under which proprietary rights of Charagah lands could be granted to the lessees and grant of proprietary rights for Charagah lands had been specifically prohibited as such lands were required for public purpose-- Request of lessee for grant of proprietary rights had rightly been turned down, in circumstances. Ghulam Siddique Awan for Petitioner. Date of hearing; 10th December, 2002 Facts of the case are that Charagah land measuring 87 Kanals, 19 Marlas situated in Chak No.3/T, Tehsil and District Multan was leased out to the petitioner in 1994 under the Temporary Cultivation Scheme. His request for grant of proprietary rights having been turned down by the D.D.O.(R), Multan vide his order, dated 28-11-2001, his appeal in the matter was dismissed by the E.D.O.(R), Multan Division vide order, dated 15-1-2002. The Revision Petition (R.O.R. No.178 of 2002) filed by the petitioner against the order of the E.D.O.(R), Multan was dismissed by this Court vide order, dated 26-6-2002 on the grounds that the land in question being Charagah land, under the policy of the Board of Revenue proprietary rights for such lands were not permissible. It was further observed that the plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner about allotment of alternate land to the petitioners had no force as there was no policy of the Board of Revenue for allotment of alternate lands in lieu of Charagah lands given on leases. The said order of this Court has been assailed through the present review petition.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner asserted that through his order, dated 5-2-1987 passed in Revision Petition No.2573 of 1986, the Member' (Colonies) had allowed proprietary rights to the lessee by ordering exchange of Baqaya Sarkar land with the Charagah land leased out to him. The learned counsel contended that in view of this decision, the petitioner may be granted proprietary rights of the land by exchange of some other available land of the Chak.

3. The above contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner has no validity for the reason that grant of proprietary rights to the lessees is governed by the policy formulated by the. Board of Revenue on the subject. On the other hand, as observed in the impugned order there is no policy of the Board of Revenue under which proprietary rights of Charagah lands can be granted to the lessees. On the contrary grant of proprietary rights for Charagah lands has been specifically prohibited as such lands are required for public purposes. While, on the one hand, the order, dated 5-2-1987 of the Member (Colonies) relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner has no relevance to the circumstances of the present case, 'on other hand, this order being violative of the prescribed policy of the. Board of Revenue, it has no validity for being accepted as a precedent.

4. For the foregoing reasons, the review petition is dismissed as having no merits. H.B.T/69/Rev. Review petition dismissed.