Resumption of leased land

Petitioner challenged the vires of order passed by Member Colonies, Board of Revenue Punjab whereby his request for restoration of allotment/conveyance deed was declined

Validity

Petitioner had started his demand for purchase of just 5½ kanals of State land in his own Chak, which afterwards increased to 31½ kanals and lastly to 57½ kanals in another revenue estate

Most valuable chunk of land facing the Highway was thrown away to him just for peanuts

Petitioner had sought lease of the land but the Secretary Finance, who had no business with the private project, proposed permanent transfer of the State land so that a blue-eyed could be accommodated over and above his own request

Execution of conveyance deed for agricultural purposes was another violation towards the alleged specific sale for construction of a purported Hospital

Petitioner who had voluntarily undertook twice to complete the project i.e. construction of a hospital within extended time of his own choice had failed to install even a brick

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Unless a sale had been completed, inter alia, by transfer of possession of leased land under an agreement to sell and by conversion of such land to unlawful use, the allottee was not liable to penal action (i.e. resumption of leased land).

Register of the concerned Tehsil maintained by the Provincial Government revealed that the Commissioner had not recommended conferment of proprietary rights in the leased land, and accordingly lease in question was not approved for transfer of proprietary rights

Heirs of allottee thus lacked entitlement to obtain proprietary rights of the leased land

Supreme Court remanded the case to the Board of Revenue for reviewing its order whereby allottee was held to have become entitled to grant of proprietary rights of the leased land

Supreme Court directed that the Board of Revenue while reviewing its order should bear in mind recommendations made by its Judicial Member for allotment of alternate land to the allotee and his heirs on account of their long standing service rendered for more than 100 years in the development of the land leased out to them

Appeal was allowed accordingly.