Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: 1972 PLD 48
Court / Jurisdiction: REVENUE-DECISION-PUNJAB
Parties: GHULAM MURTAZA vs THE STATE
This judicial decision was delivered by the REVENUE-DECISION-PUNJAB. The matter involves proceedings between GHULAM MURTAZA and THE STATE, officially reported as 1972 PLD 48. The court reviewed applicable Pakistani statutes, procedural requirements, and governing case-law authorities. The full text below contains the complete facts, arguments, and legal reasoning rendered by the honorable bench.
P L D 1972 Rev
P L D 1972 Rev. 48
[Punjab]
Present : A. G. Riza, Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue, Punjab
GHULAM MURTAZA‑Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE‑Respondent
Revision No. 1075 of 1970‑71, decided on 26th October 1971, District Sahiwal.
State land‑Allotment‑Unauthorised occupant of State land deriving benefits therefrom for ten years without paying any rent‑Lenient view, however, directed to be taken to recover rent on basis of twenty times land revenue for illicit cultivation.
Hassan Ahmad Khan Kanwar for Petitioner.
Muhammad Rafique Mahmood Reader to Colony Assistant Sahiwal for the State.
ORDER
This is a revision petition against the order dated 15‑5‑1971 of the Commissioner Multan Division by which the land in dispute was resumed and the Collector Sahiwal was asked to take over possession of the land appurtenances thereon imme diately.
2. The facts of the case briefly are that the petitioner Ghulam Murtaza had allegedly secured land comprising Khasra Nos. 64/8 to 14, 18, 19 and 20 of Chak No. 81 5‑R Tehsil Sahiwal, fraudulently under the Grow More Food Scheme. This came to the notice of the Commissioner Multan Division on the application of one Muhammad Hayat anti the learned Commissioner took up the case of resumption in exercise of his suo motu revisional jurisdiction. The petitioner submitted an application for con ferment of proprietary rights which was turned down as the genuineness of the allotment was not established. The Colony Assistant then submitted the case to the Collector on 15‑8‑1969 recommending resumption of land. The Collector ordered further enquiry and the Colony Assistant reported to the Collector on 22‑12‑1969 as under :‑
(a) Under order of Government dated 8‑10‑1962 the land should have been resumed long ago being situated within 5 miles radius of Municipal Committee ;
(b) Ghulam Murtaza was not entitled to acquire proprietary rights ;
(c) Ghulam Murtaza had not paid any rent for the land since the time he alleges he was made this allotment ; and (d) The Patwari's jamabandi and Khasra Girdawari should be examined by the Collector in the presence of the parties and decision taken and that the file was not traceable
3. The matter remained under consideration with the Colony Assistant and the Deputy Commissioner when the Commissioner took up the case and called for the record from the Colony Assistant Sahiwal. The Commissioner arrived at the decision in view of the following factors :‑
(i) The so‑called allotment to him is fake on the face of it as the alleged order (an attested copy of which is on record) is dated 12‑7‑1960 while the lease has been given from Kharif
1958 as no order of allotment can have retrospective effect nor is retrospective effect stipulated in the said order. Thus the entry is a forgery.
(ii) While the body of the allotment order recites that the allotment is for a period of five years, the statement of con ditions enumerated thereunder make it clear that the minimum period of lease is three years. In fact all allotments in the first instance were made for three years and were extended for two years more by a general order thus the allotment order is a forgery.
(iii) While the allotment order is dated 12‑7‑60 the reference to the Collector's order in the remarks column of the Register Haqdaran Zamin is 4‑12‑1960.
(iv) The original allotment file is not traceable in the Colony Offices nor was any khata created in the ledger Register for realizing cash rent for the lot. It is because no allotment in fact was made.
(v) The Patwari's parat of the allotment is not available in the Patwari's record nor was any parat entered about the receipt of Collector's order or for that matter, any Dakhal was given to him.
(vi) No mutation was entered regularising his lease under the Grow More Food Scheme for purposes of giving effect of this entry in the Register Haqdaran Zamin.
(vii) Prior to the alleged allotment Killas Nos. 8, 9, 13, 14, 18 and 19 being under cultivation for more than three years could not be allotted under the Scheme according to Government instructions. Only Killas Nos. 10 to 12, 19 and 20 measuring 4 acres 7 kanals and 11 marlas of rectangle No. 64 were Baojar Qadeem.
(viii) The original order (parat sale) is not on record but the file shows that its entries have been tempered with ink remover and written dubiously.
(ix) No rent has ever been paid for over a decade by the pretending allottee. This rent is due in advance every harvest. The Colony Office could not create it because they had made no allotment. The Patwaris were in collusion. The occupier was afraid to raise the issue for fear of discovery. It clearly shows that the whole affair was a conspiracy and a fraud.
4. He accordingly held that the petitioner had fraudulently held state land for 12 years without any order of allotment.
Moreover no allotment of this area could be made because firstly it was within the prohibited belt, secondly a major part of the land being irrigable, it could not be allotted under the Grow More Food Scheme and that no file of allotment exists because no allotment was made. It was further held that forged allotment with erasers and other manipulations, unauthorised forged entry Into record and finally the incontrovertible fact that the petitioner did not pay the stipulated advance annual rent all confirm the fact that the allotment was illicit, unauthorised and collusive occupation of state land.
5. The following action was directed by the Commissioner to be taken:
(i) That the occupation of the appellant being unauthorised he shall be treated as an illicit cultivator and suffer the penalties thereunder.
(ii) He should apart from being assessed for illicit cultivation Iowan, be prosecuted. After completion of the investigations within the short time prescribed a reference should be made by the District Magistrate to the Commissioner to consider the trial of this case under Martial Law by a Military Court.
(iii) Action should be taken to correct the record by amending the illicit entries which have been brought on the record without following the authorised procedure.
(iv) The Deputy Commissioner should determine who were the office and field officials who contributed to this fraud and helped in cheating the State. This assignment shall be under taken and executed by the Deputy Commissioner himself and be will not please require subordinates to report so that the enquiry does not suffer the same fate as the allotment scrutiny file.
6. The order of the Commissioner has since been imple mented and the petitioner has been ejected. The comments offered by the Deputy Commissioner, Sahiwal have further brought out the fact that the petitioner in addition to present revision petition has filed a suit in the Court of District Judge, Sahiwal.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued the case in considerable detail and I have given him all the time to establish his client's bona fides and claims.
8. The basic facts which are to be determined in this case are:‑
(a) Whether the petitioner Ghulam Murtaza could be treated as regular allottee under the Grow More Food Scheme and of what areas?
(b) What are his claims for being allowed either to retain the land or be given alternative land.
9. I have seen the original allotment order dated 12‑7‑1960 on the Grow More Food Scheme of 1957 which has been pro duced before me by the learned counsel for the petitioner. At item No. 3 of statement of conditions for allotment the maximum period of leases has been corrected to read 3 years instead of the printed 5 years. But in the preamble of the allotment order the printed text of "for a period of 5 years with effect from kharif 1958 harvest", has not been amended. I also find that all the en tries in this allotment order are in hand but the name of the lessee, Chak No. Square No., Killa No. and area are in type. This allotment order has been accepted by Khurshid Ahmad the clerk concerned as bearing his signature and writing, except for the typed portion. It has been stated by the Clerk concerned that these entries were never made by him in type but were always made in band. Khurshid Ahmad the then the T. C. Clerk has also stated that an allotment was made in favour of the petitioner and a file was prepared but he had not entered the allotment in the prescribed register. It is conceded by the representative of the State that because the allotment was not entered in the Allotment Register; 9t did not find a place in the ledger in which the demand for rent was to be made. The only conclusion which can therefore, arise with regard to the genuineness or otherwise of the allotment is that some allotment may have been made which was obviously tampered with and altered through the typing.
10. In proof of his allotment the learned counsel has produced, in original, memorandum No. 8035‑G/Cly, dated 13‑12‑61 signed for Deputy Commissioner, Montgomery addressed to the Tehsildar Montgomery in which the Deputy Commissioner bad asked for a report whether Ghulam Murtaza had actually installed a tube‑well in the area and if it was functioning properly etc. This cannot however, prove whether the allotment was genuine and proper, and for what area?
11. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the statement of the Commissioner in para. 6 of his order that the petitioner was in possession of the land from kharif 53 is not correct. In support of this he has produced an attested copy of the khasra girdawari dated 24‑5‑1971, for the period kharif 1957 to rabi 1960 which shows Farzand Ali as the temporary lessee of the area. He has also produced a copy of khasra girdawari dated 16‑1‑1965 which shows the petitioner in an unauthorised possession of Killas Nos. 64/8, 9, 13, 14 and 18, area 4 acres 4 kanals and 4 marlas and as a lessee of Grow More Food of Killas Nos, 10, 11, 12, 19, and 20 area 4 acres 7 kanals and 11 marlas.
12. The conclusion from these entries arises that at best the petitioner could be considered as a lessee of Killas Nos. 10, 11 12, 19 and 20 of rectangle No. 64, area 4 acres 7 kanals and 11 marlas.
13. I have however, seen the original Government orders No. 10032/57/5039‑C(G), dated 7th December 1957 which inter alia lays down that any land which had at any time during the past 3 years been leased out even once should not be leased out under the Grow More Food Scheme except by tender. The petitioner has conceded before me that he received the allotment on the basis of an application he made to the Colony Assistant Haji Abdul Latif. This means that even if there was an allotment in favour of the petitioner, it was irregular and against the orders of the Government.
14. With regard to the point mentioned by the Commis sioner with regard to lack of entry in Patwari's roznamcha and lack of mutation, the learned counsel for petitioner has stetted that if no record was maintained by the Patwari about the lease or no mutation was entered by him, it was the fault of the revenue staff and the petitioner should not be penalized for these.
15. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, con cedes that no rent has been paid by him. He also asserts that no demand notice was also received by him.
16. I find that vide order No. 4125/62‑2120‑S(G) III, dated the 10th July 1962, Government had given instructions that land under Grow More Food Campaign which was within a five miles radius of a town will be included in the auction schedule. It is conceded by the learned counsel that the area in question is within 3 miles of the town limits. It is however, stated by the representative for the State that this area was not reported by the Patwari for inclusion in the auction schedule. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that if this land cannot be allowed to remain with him because of its being within 3 miles of municipal limits of Sahiwal, he may be given alternate land. He also claims that vide Government Order No. 1683‑CLIII dated 1‑6‑1970, he should not be dislodged from the existing tenancy unless and until he has been provided with alternate land elsewhere.
17. The learned counsel for the petitioner has conceded that the possession of the land is now with the Government who have leased it out for one year. The representative of the state has produced a copy of the roznamcha according to which the possession was taken over on 18‑5‑1971.
18. From the perusal of the records and the happenings in this case, it is obvious that the whole case has been mis‑managed and mis‑handled from the very beginning. An allotment which may have been genuine but which was irregular was tampered with pre sumably by the petitioner. No proper entries were made of the allot ment or the area and no recoveries were made of the rent due from the petitioner. The petitioner has claimed before me that he has invested a lot of money to install a tube‑well and develop the land. At the same time, he has been deriving benefits from the area for the last 10 years without lawful possession and without paying any rent.
19. I have given thought to the matter and am of the view that in the light of his past conduct the petitioner should be treated as unauthorised occupant of the whole of the area of the state land that has been with him. A lenient view may however be taken regarding the rent to be recovered and recovery be made from him on the basis of twenty times the land revenue as for illicit cultivation.
20. The petitioner has already been dispossessed from the area. The ends of justice would thus have been met. No other action would appear called for against him. The Commissioner's order dated 17‑5‑1971 is modified accordingly.
21. The revision petition is disposed of in the above manner. Parties may be informed.
Order accordingly.