Grow More Food Scheme

Appellate Court had referred the documents produced by the parties but no findings had been recorded regarding such documents

'Bai Sultani' was a contract between the parties who were bound by the terms and conditions of the same

Violation of any clause of such contract would entail the penal consequences given therein

Plaintiff had violated condition/restriction of said 'Bai Sultani'

Violation of terms and conditions of 'Bai Sultani' would entail the cancellation of proprietary rights transferred in favour of plaintiff

Appellate Court had committed jurisdictional defect and illegality

Suit land was given to the landless farmers for their livelihood and also to make the land cultivable

Appellate Court had neither recorded issue-wise findings nor interpreted or evaluated the documentary evidence placed on record

Present was the case of mis-reading and non-reading of evidence

Matter was remitted to the Appellate Court with the direction to re-write the judgment after appraisal, appreciation and evaluation of the evidence available on record

Impugned judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court were set aside

Parties were directed to appear before the Appellate Court on the date fixed

Revision was accepted in circumstances.

Collector instead of restoring land to respondent allotted same to petitioner in year 1972 under temporary Scheme for five years

Board of Revenue through judgment dated 8-5-1975 passed in revision petition filed by respondent directed him to wail till expiry of lease in favour of petitioner

Petitioner again got extension of his lease up to Rabi, 1983

Collector set aside such extension order and redressed respondents claim under Grow More Food Scheme

Such order of Collector was upheld up to High Court

Contention of petitioner based on the report of Audit Officer was that respondent having not brought under cultivation fifty per cent. of area was not eligible for restoration of his earlier allotment

Validity

Such report was totally one-sided

Initial allotment in favour of petitioner had been made in oblivion of such notification, thus his such contention was not of any help to him

Petitioner was not in picture, when such notification was issued

Petitioner had not challenged decision of Board of Revenue dated 8-5-1975, but had accepted the same

Respondent for no fault of his had been successfully kept out of possession by petitioner for all such period

Orders of Revenue Authorities maintained by High Court were unexceptionable and no interference could be made on any ground

Supreme Court dismissed petition for leave to appeal in -circumstances.

Allotment of land in favour of the petitioner was cancelled on the basis of fraud and forgery committed in Revenue Record

Order of cancellation was maintained up to the Board of Revenue

Contention of the petitioners was that the orders of the forums below were result of misreading and non-reading of record

Validity

Constitutional petition was not maintainable against concurrent findings of fact

Each and every case was to be decided on its own peculiar circumstances and facts

Petitioner was granted ample opportunity to rebut the allegations qua interpolations in Revenue Record with the connivance of Patwaris before the Tribunals below but the petitioner failed to discharge his onus

High Court refused to interfere with the orders passed by the forums below in circumstances.

Civil Court had no jurisdiction in the matter to adjudicate upon the rights of the parties in view of clear ouster of jurisdiction clause embodied in S.36 of Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912

Order of restoring allotment in favour of respondent was not open to exception and could not have been challenged in Civil Court because to deal with such matter was the exclusive function of Revenue Authorities under the provisions of Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912

Leave to appeal was refused.

Plaintiffs, instead of going to Board of Revenue in revision, filed civil suit for declaration to the effect that they were entitled to get proprietary rights of land in question on basis of possession

Trial Court decreed plaintiffs suit

Jurisdiction of Civil Court

Bar of such jurisdiction under S.36 of Act V of 1912

Appellate Court set aside decree and judgment of Trial Court and dismissed plaintiffs suit on the ground that Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain and try such suit

Judgment and decree of Appellate Court was affirmed in second appeal by High Court

Validity

Bar of jurisdiction of Civil Court contained in S.36 of the Act was mandatory and Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain dispute over which Revenue hierarchy had jurisdiction/authority to decide

Orders passed by Revenue Officers were not shown to suffer from lack of jurisdiction

Plaintiffs _ had remedy to move appeal/revision before Board of Revenue, which they admittedly failed to avail

Civil Court was not competent to interfere where Revenue Courts/Authorities had exclusive jurisdiction

Plaintiffs, even on merits had no case, inasmuch as, they violated conditions on which they were given land in question

Petitioners failed to cultivate land in accordance with terms and conditions of their allotment

Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances.

Petitioner having been allotted 'land under "Grown More Food Scheme" remained in possession of same throughout as his allotment was not cancelled

Allotment of such land to Islamabad oustee without notice to petitioner

Effect

Competency of suit

No order having been passed by Collector cancelling petitioner's allotment or resuming the land, petitioner . was not obliged to exhaust remedies before relevant Authorities as a prelude for filing suit

Petitioner having remained in possession throughout, entries in Khasra Girdawari to the contrary were a mere paper entry

Appellate Court having fallen into error in relying on said entry and holding suit to be barred by time, its judgment and decree was reversed and that of Trial Court was restored.

Allotment of State land to petitioner, terminated by Collector on the ground that he was not qualified to receive proprietary rights therein

Petitioner's appeal before Commissioner was dismissed as barred by time

Petitioner's time-barred revision before Board of Revenue was also dismissed as also his Constitutional petition wherein he had challenged legality of the orders of Revenue Authorities

One of the grounds which had prevailed with the High Court in dismissing Constitutional petition was that the petitioner had not been vigilant in pursuing his remedy

Not only petitioners appeal and revision were out of time but he took almost two years in approaching the High Court in Constitutional jurisdiction. after dismissal of his revision by the Board of Revenue

Petitioner's contention that the order of cancellation of allotment was passed by the Collector in his absence and without notice to him and thus he could not prefer appeal in time, was taken note of by the High Court but was rejected on the ground that even if date of petitioner's knowledge about the cancellation of allotment was taken as a starting point for limitation there was nothing on the record to show that he had preferred his appeal within the prescribed period beginning from that date

Satisfactory explanation was also lacking as to why petitioner did not file his revision petition before the Board of Revenue within time and took almost two years in approaching the High Court

Not a fit case for interference by the Supreme Court

Leave to appeal refused.

Member, Board of Revenue cancelling allotment of land made it; petitioner under Grow More Food Scheme, 1956 or ground that land being 'Charagah' land and under cultivation, its allotment was void an initio and its proprietary rights cannot be purchased by allottee petitioner

Scheme of 1956 providing for allotment of State waste land not previously leased out in compact block of 12 1/2 acres axed not placing embargo on allotment of land known as 'Charagah' land

Order of Member, Board of Revenue, held, against terms of Scheme not affecting rights of petitioner, set aside, in circumstances.

Land restored to petitioner subsequently in pursuance of Notification issued by Board of Revenue which provided for restoration of all cancelled allotments of original and subsequent allottees

Board of Revenue accepting revision of respondent and cancelled allotment of petitioner-Order of Board of Revenue, held, was illegal having failed to take into account effect of its own Notification.

Regardless of time of expiry of lease all allottees of State land under Grow More Food Scheme had choice of acquiring proprietary rights subject to fulfillment of terms and conditions of grant.

Petitioners claiming land in dispute as an alternate land under Grow More Food Scheme on account of lease granted to them as possession of leased land not delivered to them

Petitioners nevertheless entering upon land but Collector on this account cancelling their lease

Cancellation of lease challenged by petitioners but they failed on both revenue as well as civil sides

Held, since petitioners had no lease in their favour they could not claim alternate land under Grow More Food Scheme and could not make a grievance of transfer of said land to respondents

Order of Board of Revenue disentitling petitioners from securing lease of land in dispute, justified n circumstances.

Concurrent finding of three Courts below that suit against resumption of allotment was barred by S.36 of Act-Held, not open to exception

Leave to appeal refused.

Leases given under Grow More Food Scheme in 1956 initially for period of three years and in 1958 this period extended for five years Leases, held, expired in April, 1962-View of Courts below being contrary to law pronounced by superior Courts, held further, liable to be set aside on this score.

S. 10-Grow More Food Scheme -Whether pending allotment of alternate land possession of petitioners over land protected Held, within domain of pure discretion of departmental authority Cannot be dealt with or interfered in Constitutional jurisdiction Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199.

Petitioner agreeing to purchase land in 1965-66 on basis of highest auction price for land sold in same or adjoining Deh-Petitioner paying the price and obtaining 1jazatnamas-In 1970, another policy, more favourable to purchasers of land, laid down by Government of Sind-Held, later policy not to cover petitioner's case and applicable only to land remaining un-disposed of by 1970-Held further, Government of Sind and Colonization Officer not obliged to re-open matter of disposed of land in 1970 on basis of later policy.

Art. 199 read with West Pakistan Government Rules of Business 1962, r. 15-Grow More Food Scheme-Land Utilization Committee of Board of Revenue deciding to dispose of un-disposed of land leased under Grow More Food Scheme to lessees-Petitioners offering to purchase land on specified conditions, paying 1/4th of purchase price and obtaining ijazatnamas-Decision subsequently withdrawn on ground of want of proper sanction of Board of Revenue-Land Utilization Committee having been attended ,by representatives of Finance Department and Board of Revenue and having consented to decision taken decision not open to modification unilaterally and rights accrued to petitioner before modification of earlier decision could not be taken away-Petitioners in case of fulfilness of conditions prescribed by Land Utilization Committee (before modification or cancellation of earlier decision), held, could not be divested of their right to transfer of proprietary rights in land.

Memoranda dated 31.8-1972 and 12-12-1972 modifying statement of conditions coming into existence during pendency of appeal-Such memoranda to be taken into consideration as supervening factor for effectually deciding controversy involved-Point relatable to facts requiring leading of evidence-Case remanded in circumstances of case.-[Evidence].

S. 12 read with `Grow More Food Scheme'-Allotment under `Grow More Food Scheme', prior right to-Respondents prior allottees under 'Grow More Food' Scheme but, land resumed for default in rent and allotted to respondents-Restoration of land to prior allottees, held, unexceptionable, particularly when petitioners offered alternate land as compensation-Petitions dismissed on, merits in circumstances.

Petitioner also not cultivating land and his grant mistakenly forfeited-Petitioner also not challenging such forfeiture Petitioner being not entitled to land, land, held, could not be restored to him.

Art. 98-Writ-Grow More Food Scheme-Auction- Conditions of auction authorising higher authorities to confirm or not to confirm auction of State land, at their discretion-Authorities not confirming auction-Persons giving highest bid, held, did not acquire any valid title to property so as to give them right to invoke writ jurisdiction.

Grow More Food Scheme-Cancellation of grant of land- Concurrent findings by Courts below that grantee had committed breach of conditions of grant-Special Leave to Appeal refused by Supreme Court.

Board of Revenue's Memorandum No. 2805/62/2363-S(G)III dated 8-8-62-Question whether the promise of "concession of sale" contained in Memorandum was not by its nature or expression an enforcible undertaking-Whether Collector in face of undertaking not entitled to auction land allotted under Scheme-Special Leave to Appeal granted by Supreme Court.

Grow More Food Scheme Origin and gist of Scheme.

Grow More Food Scheme Grow More Food Scheme-Grantee failing to cultivate Ian himself-Allotment may be cancelled.