State Land

Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue) resumed the state land in favour of the state imposing tawan against the occupants of the disputed land declaring their occupancy illegal

Ejected occupants (sub-tenants of original allottee of the disputed land) assailed the said order by preferring appeal before the Additional Commissioner (Revenue)emphasizing upon implementation of a previous order of District Court having been passed in their favour about 35 years ago; the appeal was accepted in favour of ejected occupants (respondents)

Validity

Record revealed that the allotment of the disputed land was cancelled from the name of original allottee as he had secured double allotment of land

The lease period of the disputed land expired in 1980, and the same was not further extended

Therefore, the original allottee had no locus standi to appoint respondents as sub-tenants of the disputed land, as he could not retain the said land, and could not sub-let the same

Moreover, the respondents could not provide order of any competent authority labeling them as sub-tenants or allottees of the land in question; rather, repeated orders of the revenue authorities were passed against them

Respondents only emphasized upon implementation of a previous order of District Court having been passed 35 years ago without appreciating the non-disputed facts that the same could not be implemented specially when the (respondents') execution decree was dismissed and the same was never challenged

Moreover, the High Court twice remanded the case to district authorities without ordering to implement the said order passed by District Court and the revenue authorities gave concrete plausible and legal justifications in favour of resumption of the state land which could not be rebutted by the respondents

The Additional Commissioner (Revenue) by ignoring all said facts, instead of issuing order on merits, accepted the appeal against the facts and record, which was highly questionable and illegal

Thus, the impugned order was not sustainable in the eyes of law

Member -Board of Revenue set-aside the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue) while the order passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue)was upheld

Revision petition, filed by State / District Collector , having legal force and merit, was accepted.

Land in question was public property and could not be doled upon any cherished person through private treaty to extend favouritism, nepotism and for undue enrichment of individuals at the resources of public meant for ultimate welfare and betterment of people

Land in question had been situated within prohibitory zone since before year 1960, and was already transferred in favour of a government department for establishing a housing scheme and the same could not be transferred to petitioner through private treaty

High Court in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction declined to interfere in the order passed by authorities

Constitutional Petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Land in question had been allotted in favour of respondents on the basis of order passed by the Monitoring Cell of Supreme Court

Additional Commissioner had directed the Collector to exclude land reserved for graveyard and road and issue fresh allotment order with regard to land in question

Order passed by the Additional Commissioner had not been challenged by the respondents which had attained finality

Revenue authorities should have got vacated the land reserved for graveyard and public purposes

Establishment of Monitoring Cell in the Supreme Court was unconstitutional

Any order passed by the Monitoring Cell of Supreme Court having no legal backing was nullity in the eye of law

Orders issued on the directive of Monitoring Cell were declared ab-initio void, in circumstances

Revenue authorities had jurisdiction to determine the entitlement of the claimants in accordance with law

Impugned judgment passed by the High Court was set aside

Appeal was allowed, in circumstances.

Petitioners claimed that they, being displaced persons, had been in possession of the State land in question since the year 1947 and therefore sought direction to respondents/authorities for transfer of ownership rights of the land

Respondents took plea that sale of State land through private treaty was no more permissible under the prevailing law and policy

Validity

Petitioners failed to establish that they had been in occupation of the land under any legal authority

High Court denied proprietary rights over State land in absence of any document to establish any right of possession and observed that no person would have any right or title in State land, until a written order had been passed and allottee/grantee had taken over lawful possession

High Court further observed that grant or allotment of State land was not a right of an individual and the same was, in fact, a grace

Factual inquiry regarding possession of the land was not needed

Petitioner could not justify and explain the delay of about ten years in filing present petition after price of the land had been assessed

No vigilant efforts appeared to have been made for deposit of the assessed price

Land in question had never been transferred in the names of the petitioners through any written order

High Court, however, directed that petitioners would be granted a fair chance to participate in the auction

Constitutional petition, along with contempt petition and petition for registration of FIR, were dismissed.

Process of allotment of government land should not start by making an application but from wide publication.

Orders passed by Additional Commissioner (Revenue) and the one by District Collector, regarding partition of said land were set aside

District Collector was directed by Board of Revenue to reverse the possession as was before order of partition in revenue record, within one month of receipt of present order.

Retention of possession of State land by illegal means would not create any right in favour of its possessor.

State land- Executive functionaries being custodians of State land were bound to protect the same from invasions, misuse and encroachments, and if such executive functionaries failed to perform their duties, the presumption would be that they were privy to criminal acts.

Plaintiff alleged that defendant, in collusion with revenue field staff had obtained proprietary rights of suit land despite the fact that the plaintiff was owner in possession of the said land

Plaintiff failed to establish his physical possession on the disputed land

Trial Court dismissed the suit, appeal also met the same fate

Validity

Held, Revenue authorities rightly transferred proprietary rights of the State land to the defendant when the plaintiff had failed to establish his physical possession thereon.

Land in possession of petitioners having been included in a specific scheme, proprietary rights claimed by petitioners on that land could not be granted to them

Record showed that but for introduction of specific scheme, petitioners would have been granted land in question

Leave was granted to examine the contention that in such like cases consistent practice of Government was to offer alternative State land to the affected person and this could not be treated as mere bounty by the State and further that relevant notification created right in favour of allottees

Petitioners in the meantime, were directed to make applications for grant of some other land

Petitioners' failure to make such. applications of in the event of their failure to pursue the same, leave to appeal was to be withdrawn

Court's order, however, would not be a bar to the allotment of land in question to a deserving person under the specific scheme.

Auction was confirmed by competent authority in name of petitioner, part of payment was made by him and Rubkar was also issued to him

Petitioner's bid, after about two years was de-confirmed for reasons that respondent had filed application claiming three survey numbers as non-evacuee

Deconfirmation of petitioner's bid was ordered without affording him an opportunity of being heard when petitioner was also agreeable to exclusion of disputed three survey numbers

­Case remanded to respondent to hear petitioner on question whether order of deconfirmation in respect of remaining survey numbers after excluding three survey numbers might be recalled.

Original tenant having died there were two claimants for the allotment, one predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners and the other respondent, both being sons of original tenant

Elder brother of the two died during pendency of the matter before Collector

Tenancy was allotted to the respondent

Petitioners' (successors-in-interest of the other brother) appeal, revision and writ petition having been dismissed they sought leave to appeal to Supreme Court which was granted as leave was granted in two cases where similar questions were raised.

Earlier Notification of 1968 upon which reliance was placed for lease of land was superseded specifically by Notification No. 1622-71/1205-CLI dated 24-4-1971 when in fact no such Scheme for lease of land existed

No ground available to interfere with order impugned in review application

Application dismissed

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XLVII, R. 1. [p. 4591 A

Findings arrived at by Courts below were neither perverse nor based on misreading or misapprecration of documentary evidence on record

Reasons given by Courts below deciding case against petitioner, cogent and convincing

Question whether petitioner was served with proper notice before cancellation of his land being of pure fact, interference was declined by High Court in revisional jurisdiction.

Collector after holding enquiry and reaching findings that allotment had been obtained by fraud cancelled allotment of Ihata

Respondent neither stating in his plaint that he was not given an opportunity by Collector of presenting his version or leading evidence in support thereof nor alleging that order of Collector was based on no evidence

Suit of respondent, held, was therefore, clearly barred by S. 36 of Act

Appeal accepted, judgment and decree of High Court set aside and Ithat of Trial Court restored

No rule of natural justice, held, violated by Member Board of Revenue in circumstances.

Petitioners filing constitutional petition against such respondents and their predecessor took no action when suit land was granted to Petitioners previously as lease-holders and subsequently as grantees

Respondent's inactivity at time of handing over possession to petitioner, their non-contest at time of inclusion of land in Schedule for permanent grant and raising no objection to disposal of land in open Katchery, held, did not justify to re-open issue which already stood concluded.

Person in possession being grantee of land from Government, held, had no right to acknowledge share of anyone in such land until and unless such person had become full owner of land after payment of all instalments

Agreement and mutation having been found to be forged and suspicious, transferees had no right in respect of such land.

Will of deceased bequeathing his property in favour of petitioner made at time when State land stood resumed by Government

Land restored to allottee after his death

Held, petitioner could not claim ownership of or right to suit land in circumstances of case

Leave to appeal refused.

High Court holding on basis of proved evidence that suit land was granted to respondent for purpose of public utility and since property no longer required for said purpose, same was to revert to Government and that contract between parties was not enforceable in law

Plea raised by petitioner against such finding found to be without merit

Leave to appeal refused.

Statement of petitioner's witness establishing that before resumption of grant notice was issued to petitioner and record showing that same was served

Appellate Court and High Court both concurring in factual finding that resumption of grant was not without service of proper notice

No question of needing further examination

Leave to appeal refused.

Allocation of land for resettlement of persons displaced on account of installation of Atomic Energy Plant later cancelled and other tracts of land reserved for purpose by Government

Notification. Providing that no lessee of such land would be entitled as of right to purchase of proprietary rights found to have been competently issued by Board of Revenue

Leave to appeal refused.

Leave to appeal refused.

Art. 185(3)-Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912), S. 24-State land-Grant of land for construction of school of oriental language

Land resumed by Collector for failure of grantee to perform terms and conditions of grant-Leave to appeal

Granted to consider contention that even if resumption of land could not be made under S. 24 of Act, it could be made under terms and conditions of grant and that resort to arbitration was not only remedy in case.

S.10 -State land-Proprietary rights-Power to grant proprietary rights to allottee of State land-Held enabling power in domain of discretion - Eligibility of a claimant depends on satisfaction of authority.

S. 10-State land-Grant of lease-Grant of land claimed on ground of petitioner's name having been inserted in Jamabandi as a cultivator of land in dispute-Jamabandi in question not relied upon by petitioner in High Court-Presumption as to correctness of Jamabandi standing rebutted by evidence of forgery in relevant Khasra, Girdawari-Question of fact to be determined by competent authority: whether petitioner in cultivating possession of land as a tenant at a particular point of time-Such question to be answered more, appropriately by contemporaneous document, Khasra Girdawan Claim of petitioner for grant of land as actual cultivator in circumstances rightly rejected by lower Court and petition for leave to appeal liable to be dismissed.

S. 10-State land-Conferment of proprietary rights-Government, held, competent to examine question and ascertain for itself persons entitled to obtain benefit of proprietary rights in land, notwithstanding previous decision to contrary.

State land-Transfer by public auction-Highest bid of petitioner for leasehold rights of State land confirmed by Commissioner but recalled before issuance of formal letter of allotment-Contention that case being of a contractual obligation and petitioner having had a vested right created in his favour, land be directed to be leased out to him-Held: Petitioner if seeking enforcement of a contractual obligation proper remedy lay in invoking jurisdiction of a civil Court by means of a regular suit-Petitioner if on other hand sought an effective constitutional remedy by way of judicial review of an executive order, question would naturally arise whether he acquired any vested right in terms of statute under which leasehold rights granted in State lands-Collector having not till then passed a written order and petitioner having not taken possession of land in accordance with procedure outlined in S. 10(4) of Punjab Act V of 1912, High Court, held, rightly held petitioner not having till then been veste

Government policy re: tharas in front of shops and houses in Sargodha Town-Principles for disposal of built on tharas.

Hur Claim Policy read with Government Order No. R-10456-H(b) 44 dated 27-11-1947-Allotment of State land-Land granted to appellant situated in area of land reserved for Reserved forest-Land in question hence not available for allotment and grant in appellant's favour, held, ineffective and void-Appellant's father (predecessor-in-interest of appellant) not alleged to have not been entitled to land on account of Hur Claim Policy, appellant, held further, entitled to same area of land on account of compensation awardable to father of appellant as a consequence of Hur Claim Policy.

Grow More Food Scheme-Alternate land available to Grow More Food allottees only in two eventualities-Failure by allottee to cultivate State land leading to forfeiture of allotment-Held, alternate land could not be granted in such cases

Grant of land-Bounty of State-No vested right to a grant can be claimed.

State Land Revenue Commissioner Sind Letter No. 4785-F-51 dated 24-10-52 and West Pakistan Board of Revenue Memo. No. 430-63-1 /528-Gs. dated 15-3-63-Guddu Barrage Project

Darya Khurdi rights

Kacha lands converted Into pakka land, due to shifting of bund or excavation of channel

Can be granted in satisfaction of darya khurdi rights.

Purchaser from Government entering into sale agreement of land and receiving part payment of sale price during 1964-69 and possession delivered to vendees

Khasra Girdawari indicating possession of vendees since Kharif 1969-Dhal Bachh indicating revenue assessed in name of vendees since Kharif 1969-Mutations, however, entered and sanctioned after crucial date (20-12-71) due to delayed order by Revenue Department regarding proprietary right in favour of original purchaser (vendor)

Area sold to original purchaser (vendor) also changed by Revenue Department at time of granting proprietary rights

Vendees, in circumstances, held, not to be affected due to change of area and sale agreements, coupled with payment of price and transfer of possession before 20-12-1971

Transfer, held, not hit by para. 7(1)(x) and alienation covered by para. 7(1)(b), hence, should be treated as yalid.

State Land State land-Sale scheme, paras. 33 & 34-Grant of land to sitting tenant-Presumption of. grant for breach of conditions

Safeguards against indiscriminate resumption- Grantee to be afforded proper opportunity of being heard and served with a written notice before ordering penalty or resumption of land-Resumption to be ordered only when breach not capable of rectification.

State Land State land-Grant of Board of Revenue remanding case for decision on merits-Colonization Officer, instead of hearing parties involved in case, inviting fresh offers with result that petitioner also applied for disputed land-Barrage Authorities, held, were not competent to invite fresh offers ant allow other persons, to be interested in such land-Commissioner's order holding petitioner not a party to case, upheld.

Lambardar, being public functionary, has a superior right and claim to State land, specially if allotted under Scheme.

Petitioner not to suffer for omissions on part of functionaries of State-Order of Collector imposing tawan on petitioner set aside and his possession regularised.

State Land State land-Grow More Food Scheme-Grant of proprietary rights-Requirements for-Completion of 5 years term of lease and at least 50% of land must be brought under cultivation-Case remanded for decision on merits after examining revenue record and in light of current Government orders.

Land in excess of 39 acres reserved for charagah area can be utilized to create Lambardari square.

Held, exclusively for Lambardars only.

Case remanded, for fresh disposal on merits under revised policy of Government.

Not to be disturbed and occupation to be regularised by Revenue Authorities.

Allotment of State land in favour of Lambardar under Scheme upheld, in circumstances of case.

Land in dispute already standing allotted to Lambardar under Breeding Scheme enforced earlier than 15 years Lease Scheme

Such allotment, held, could not be set aside and land could not be allotted under Lease Scheme.

Held, according to Scheme of Government.

Allottee committing breach of condition by being permanently absent from lot, failing to sink well and reclaim required area-Resumption of lot in favour of State fully justified, in circumstances of case.

Do not deserve any consideration or preference for allotment of such sites.

Collector directed to serve notice why name of defaulter should not be removed from joint allotment under S. 24, Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912).

Grant of-Grantee making his water pass through another's land for deriving monetary benefits-Matter not one in which Condition No. 8 of Colony Conditions could be considered to be applicable-Government cannot interfere in such matter which should be settled between parties by mutual consent.