Ejected Tenants Scheme

Both the respondents were separately listed as head of two independent families and were assigned separate serial numbers in the Register of Temporary. Allotments

Matter of entitlement of the respondents had been scrutinized at different levels starting from District Collector up to Board of Revenue and it had never been found that the respondents were not refugees from India or that they Were not independent families or that they were not entitled to allotment of the land

Effect

Respondent had not committed any fraud ill securing allotment of the land and had not made any misrepresentation for the purpose

High Court had rightly set aside the order passed by the Board of Revenue as in the order, the Board had not given any reason for concluding that the respondents were not heads of independent families and were not entitled to separate and independent tenancies in the land in question

Supreme Court declined to take any exception to the judgment passed by High Court

Leave to appeal was refused.

Claim to the remaining land was declined on the ground that the land was being irrigated by well and could not be transferred in excess of 64 Kanals under notification dated 22-1-1971

Validity

Land was barren at the time of allotment and brought under cultivation by the allottee/respondent

Respondent, therefore, was entitled to allotment of remaining land in excess of 64 Kanals.

Allotment of land in question, as a State land to tenants under Ejected Tenants Scheme, 1963 and conferring proprietary rights on allottees, could not be objected to for such land retained its character as a State land

Allotment of such land as evacuee land was thus, impermissible.

Allottee of land under the scheme who was in its cultivating possession, applied for grant of proprietary rights in respect thereof, but his application was finally dismissed on ground that a considerable portion of land allotted to him had already been given to District Council for construction of a school

Collector, on direction of Board of Revenue verified that said land was not at all needed by District Council for any purpose

Collector after concluding that land in dispute was not at all needed by District Council, ordered for withdrawal of land from District Council with the observation that resumed land should vest in ownership of the State

Land in dispute admittedly was in cultivating possession of allottee and was not needed for construction of school by District Council

Allottee being an ejected tenant, had a vested right to retain land in question and there was absolutely no legal justification with Collector to say that land in dispute should vest in ownership of the State.

Appellants' application for grant of proprietary rights over the suit land, allegedly allotted to them under Ejected Tenants Scheme, rejected by Collector

Appeal and revision petition of appellants dismissed by Commissioner and Board of Revenue respectively and writ petition also dismissed by High Court

Appellants in occupation of land in dispute for quite a long time and had been paying its land revenue but there was no evidence to show that they were so occupying same under some authority

Roznamcha Waqiati relied upon by appellants not indicating that land was allotted to them

Appellants unable to controvert the factual position

Appellants, held, had no right whatsoever to claim any ownership rights-Appeal dismissed.

High Court for valid and cogent reasons, dismissing petitioner's writ petition, against order of authorities resuming land in question instead of transferring same to him under Ejected Tenant Scheme, 1960

Impugned order not suffering from any legal infirmity

Leave to appeal refused.

At time of conferring proprietary right on allottees under scheme, land in dispute was situated beyond Municipal limits of second class municipality with narrow limits

Subsequently at time when decision of resumption of disputed land was taken second class municipality was upgraded and had become first class with extended limits

In light of fresh decision of Board of Revenue contained in memo., dated 29-6-1978, petitioner's case, held, merited re-consideration

With consent of Advocate-General case remanded to Board of Revenue in circumstances.

On scrutiny of record found land in dispute not available for allotment being within prohibited Zone and Charagah reserved for Abadi Deh

Board of Revenue in exercise of its suo motu revisional powers recalled earlier orders passed in favour of petitioner and directed that alternate land be given to petitioner

Board of Revenue, held, had power to correct mistake found in revenue record and order accordingly

Order of Board of Revenue upheld in circumstances.

Instructions, held, contained in letter, dated 22-1-1971 could not be given retrospective effect in cases of allotment of land made prior to issuance of said instruction.

S. 42 (a) read with S. 39 (1) (c)-Ejectment of tenant-Martial Law Regulations, 1972 [No. 115], para. 25, effect of -Ejectment of tenants ordered for failure to pay rent without first holding decree of arrears' of rent remaining unsatisfied-Held, para. 25 of M. L. R. 115 does not depart from or supersede provisions of Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 and restrictions laid down in S. 42 (a) thereof still in force-Tenant cannot be ejected without satisfying requirement of S. 42.

S. 10 read with Ejected Tenants Scheme dated 28th March 1963 Plaintiffs "ejected tenants" and earlier allotted land in dispute under Ejected Tenants Scheme-Plaintiffs still in possession of land by time scheme dated 28th March 1963 issued and neither ejected from land nor put in possession of alternate land as previously ordered Land in dispute, in circumstances, held, could be dealt with under Scheme dated 28th March, 1963.

S. 24 read with ejected Tenants Scheme, 1952-Natural justice, principle of-Maxim "audi alterampartem"-Resumption order passed without notice to allottee of tenancy-Order, held, violative of mandatory provision of S. 24 as well as principle of natural justice and allottee entitled to proprietary rights in land.

Grant of land under scheme subject to condition that allotments were liable to resumption, without compensation inter alia whenever allotted land was needed by Government for any other purpose which Government considered essential-No period of lease mentioned in parchi taqsim­Government's power to resume such land and refusal to grant Proprietary rights in respect of such land-Cannot be questioned-Instructions relating to Scheme issued by Board of Revenue-Deemed instructions by Government.

Tenancy under Schemes is on yearly basis renewable each year.

Ejected Tenants Scheme Ejected tenants scheme-Allotment-Person obtaining allotment . on false pretences-Allotment cancelled and enhanced assessment imposed by Commissioner-No interference in appeal.