Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: NADIR ALI VS Respondent: BOARD OF REVENUE
1988 C L C 2169
1988 C L C 2169
[Lahore]
Before Lehrasap Khan, J
NADIR ALI‑‑Petitioner
versus
BOARD OF REVENUE‑‑Respondent
Writ Petition No. 3060 of 1985, decided on 31st January, 1988.
Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912)‑‑
‑‑‑S. 10(4)‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑Allotment of land‑‑Resumption of‑‑Petitioner being oustee of Mangla Dam, received compensation amount in respect of his property which had been acquired by WAPDA, but for re‑settlement of petitioner, on basis of allotment chit issued by WAPDA, Collector allotted agricultural land to petitioner in other District‑‑Petitioner deposited full price of such allotted land in treasury and was in cultivating possession of the same‑‑Board of Revenue, on confirmation stage, however, observed that since allottee had received cash compensation of his acquired land from WAPDA, he could not be allowed proprietary rights in regard to land allotted to him and asked Collector to initiate resumption proceedings‑‑Petitioner, being affectee of Mangla Dam having been considered eligible to allotment of land for purposes of resettlement under Mangla Dam Scheme. land, held, was rightly allotted to him and he was entitled to confirmation of proprietary rights after payment of full price‑ Compensation in respect of acquired property received by petitioner from WAPDA, had no relevancy to allotment made to him for his resettlement‑‑Observations and direction of Board of Revenue regarding resumption of allotment were set aside by High Court as without lawful authority and of no legal consequence in exercise of Consti tutional jurisdiction.
Masood Mirza for Petitioner. Sajjad Hussain, Colony Clerk with Record for Respondent. Date of hearing: 31st January, 1988.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner Nadir Ali, a Mangla Dam oustee has been allotted agricultural land measuring 12 Acres, 6 Kanals 8 Marlas situate in Chak No. 270/JB, Tehsil and District Jhang, by the Collector, Jhang on the basis of allotment chit issued by the WAPDA authorities, Mangla. The allotment .vas made by the Collector on 20th November, 1975. The petitioner :vas given possession of the land on 8th December, 1975, and since then he is in the cultivating possession of the land. He has paid the full price of the land into the Government treasury. Originally he paid a sum of Rs.4,124 as half price and subsequently the remaining price was paid by him on 24th August, 1982. Thereafter the Deputy Commissioner, Jhang moved the Board of Revenue, Punjab through the Commissioner, Faisalabad Division, for confirmation of the sale in favour of the petitioner.
2. The Board of Revenue, however, observed through its letter, dated 22nd March, 1985, that since the allottee had received cash compensation from the WAPDA, he could not be allowed proprietary rights in regard to land allotted to him. The Collector was asked to initiate resumption proceedings against the petitioner and to refund the amount deposited by him in the Government treasury.
3. The observations and the direction of the Board of Revenue contained in the aforementioned letter dated 22nd March, 1985, have been assailed through the present constitutional petition and it has been prayed that the respondents should execute the conveyance deed in favour of the petitioner.
4. Admittedly the petitioner received the compensation from the WAPDA authorities in regard to his land and house etc. situate in the Project area. It transpires from the contents of allotment chit issued by the WAPDA authorities that compensation amounting to Rs.28,099 has been received by the petitioner in this behalf. The land allotted to the petitioner in Jhang district was not in lieu of compensation of the immovable property of the petitioner situate in WAPDA Project area which was acquired by the WAPDA authorities. 5. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the land was allotted to him for re‑settling him as he was an oustee from Mangla Dam Project Area and for the land so allotted to him price fixed by the Government has been recovered from him.
6. This contention has not been rebutted by the respondents. As already observed, WAPDA authorities while issuing the allotment chit to the petitioner were conscious of the fact that he has already received compensation in respect of the property which was acquired by WAPDA authorities, yet he was considered eligible to the allotment of land, for purpose of re‑settlement. The contents of the allotment order (Annexure 'C') also indicate that the petitioner was allotted land by the Collector. Jhang on 20th November, 1975, under section 10(4) of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab Act, 1912, under Mangla Dam Scheme. Thus, the allotment made to him is governed by the conditions of the said Scheme. It has also been specifically mentioned in the allotment order that the purchase money was to be paid by the allottee under the provisions of Mangla Dam Scheme. It thus becomes evident that land allotted to the petitioner in Jhang district was not in lieu of compensation of his land or other immovable property situate in blangla Dam Project Area which was acquired by WAPDA authorities. This allotment was made to him as an affectee/ oustee of Mangla Dam for purpose of re‑settlement and he was required to pay the price of this land in accordance with the conditions of the Mangla Dam Scheme. As already observed, the petitioner has admittedly paid the full price of the land. The Collector duly recommended him for confirmation of sale of land in his favour. His case was recommended by the Commissioner, Faisalabad Division as well. The Board of Revenue in the circumstances has wrongfully observed that since he has already received cash compensation from WAPDA he could not be allowed proprietary rights. Compensation received by him has no relevancy to the allotment of land made to him for the purpose of re‑settlement of Mangla Dam affectee. As per conditions of the Scheme, he is entitled to the confirmation of proprietary rights after the payment of full price and the question of resuming the land from him does not arise.
7. For the foregoing reasons, this writ petition is allowed. The observations and direction contained in the Board of Revenue letter, dated 22nd March, 1985, addressed to the Deputy Commissioner, Jhang, are held to be without lawful. authority and of no legal effect. Consequently, the respondents are directed to confer proprietary rights on the petitioner in respect of the land allotted to him in Chak No. 270/JB, Tehsil and District Jhang and to execute the conveyance deed in his favour in this behalf there shall be no orders as to costs.
H.B.T./N‑119/L Petition allowed.