1992 PLP 1956 (CLC)

This writ petitions arisen out of an order passed by the learned Member, Board of Revenue (Colonies), Punjab, Lahore on 29‑4‑1970 whereby he rejected the revision petition filed by Ghulam Farid petitioner against the order of the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Lahore Division, Lahore thereby maintaining the alder of the Collector, Sheikhupura cancelling his allotment of the land made in his favour in 1957 under the Grow More Food Scheme.

2. The petitioner clams that he was allotted land comprising Khasra Nos.l to 101 of Square No.la and Khasra Nos.ll to 14 of Square No.4 in Chak No.285/R13, Tehsil and LArict Sheikhupura under the Grow More Food Scheme on 11‑3‑1957. He lid cultivated the land by putting in hard labour and making substantial investment for its improvement. He applied on 6‑11‑1963 for the grant of proprietary rights and a report in his favour was made by the subordinate‑ revenue staff fur the grant of proprietary rights but the Collector after having learnt that the original allotment made in his favour was irregular he rejected his application on 29‑6‑1964. This order was assailed in appeal before the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Lahore Division, Lahore which was 211owed and the case was remanded to the Collector; Sheikhupura. On remand the Collector on 21‑9‑1967 refused to grant the petitioner proprietary rights on the ground that the land in dispute was included in `Charagah' in 1960 and that the original allotment made in his favour was irregular, as it was allotted only by the Tehsildar and was not approved by the Collector concerned. The other ground pressed into service was that the land in dispute was situated within four miles of the outer limits of the Town Committee, Sangla Hill and thus it could not have been allotted under the Grow More Food Scheme. This order was challenged in appeal before the Additional Commissioner (Revenue) and in revision before the learned Member, Board of Revenue (Colonies) but both the appeal as well as the revision petition failed. Hence this petition.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that the allotment of the land in dispute was held valid by the Additional Commissioner (Revenue) in his order dated 19‑7‑1969 but he could not maintain the same for the reason that the land in dispute was reserved for `Charagah' and further that he did not pay anything towards the rent of the land allotted to him. It was submitted that this observation of the learned Additional Commissioner to the extent that the land was reserved for `Charagah' was erroneous. It was further stated that the learned Member, Board of Revenue did not apply his conscious mind to the facts of the case and passed a stereotype order.

4. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner as well as Ch. Sardar Muhammad, Tehsildar who is present in Court with the record. Learned counsel for petitioner was unable to persuade this Court to interfere in the impugned orders which are based on the findings of fact namely, that the land in dispute is reserved for `Charagah' and that the same is situated within four miles from the outer limits of the Municipal Committee, Sangla Hill. At this stage learned counsel for petitioner vehemently contended that in case the petitioner is not held entitled to retain the land in dispute which was allotted to him in the year 1957 as also that the petitioner has made substantial investment by improvement of the land in question he may be accommodated for any other suitable State land situate within the same Chak or in the adjoining Chak. , On a question Ch. Sardar Muhammad, Tehsildar has pointed out that no State barren land is available in Chak No.285/RB but lard in Square Nos.188/R.B and 189/RB of adjoining Chak No.ll/RB, Tehsil Safdarabad, District Sheikhupura is available. In view of the fact that the petitioner was allotted land in the year 1957 and he had been in cultivating possession thereof for a considerable period and is reportedly not owner of land above the subsistence holding the petitioner be allotted alternative State barren land as indicated above, if available.

5. Subject to the observation made above this petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. H.B.T./G‑55/L Petition dismissed.