Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MANZOOR AHMAD VS Respondent: STATE
1996 M L D 344
1996 M L D 344
[Board of Revenue Punjab]
Before S. M. Nasim, Member Colonies
MANZOOR AHMAD ‑‑‑ Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
R.O.R. No.1112 of 1982, decided on 17th October, 1982.
Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑S.10‑‑‑West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967), S.164‑‑‑Board of Revenue's Instruction No.1246‑82/1961‑CLI, dated 17‑5‑1982, for grant of proprietary rights to eligible persons‑‑‑Petitioner's application for grant of proprietary rights was rejected without considering instructions of Board of Revenue dated 17‑5‑1982‑‑‑Applications for grant of such proprietary rights were to be made within three months from issuance of instructions by Board of Revenue‑‑‑Petitioner was the only applicant who had made application within specified time; no other application for grant of proprietary rights of land in question, had been made within prescribed time‑‑‑Board of Revenue directed that petitioner's case should be considered in accordance with instructions for the grant of proprietary rights and if he fulfilled conditions and there was no breach by him of prescribed conditions, he should be allowed proprietary rights.
Syed Jamshed Ali Shah for Petitioner.
ORDER
This is a revision petition against the order of the Commissioner Sargodha dated 1‑3‑1982 whereby he rejected the appeal of the petitioner against the order of Assistant Commissioner/Collector, Faisalabad dated 18‑10‑1981 vide which he did not allow the petitioner to purchase the proprietary rights of the disputed land and rejected his application on the ground that he was not lessee of the land since before Kharif 1977 and that his lease started from Kharif 1978 to Rabi 1983.
2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner obtained lease of the disputed land for 5 years from Kharif 1978 to Rabi 1983. He applied for the grant of proprietary rights but the Assistant Commissioner/Collector rejected his application on the ground that he was not a lessee before 1977. Aggrieved by this order the petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner who observed that the petitioner was lessee since Kharif 1978 but was a sub‑tenant under previous lessee from Kharif 1976 and his eligibility for obtaining the proprietary rights was at priority No.4 in para. 13 of Notification dated 3‑9‑1979 and there was sufficient application for the grant of proprietary rights under the first three priorities and he could not be considered for the grant of proprietary rights till such time, the applications under the first three priority are disposed of. Hence this revision petition.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. He contended that he cultivated Sqr. Nos.31/2 to 10 measuring 66 Kanals as a tenant of Bashir Ahmad who was a lessee of the land under 5 years' lease scheme since Kharif 1973 and after the lease term of Bashir Ahmad expired he obtained the lease from Kharif 1978 to Rabi 1983 under five years' lease scheme and was still in its continuous possession. He argued that as a sub‑tenant of the lessee he was entitled for the grant of proprietary rights of the disputed land under para. 13(4) of Notification dated 3‑9‑1979. He argued that his application was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner/Collector on the ground that he was not a lessee before Kharif 1977. His appeal was rejected by the Commissioner on the plea that there were sufficient applications for the grant of proprietary rights under first three priorities of para. 13 of Notification dated 3‑9‑1979. He stressed that there were no applications pending with the colonies authorities of the Sub‑Division for the purchase of proprietary rights of this land. He urged that the orders of the lower Courts be set aside and he be granted the proprietary rights.
4. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the case. The Board of Revenue had issued instructions vide its Letter No.1246‑82/1961‑CLI, dated 17‑5‑1982 for inviting applications from the eligible persons for the grant of proprietary rights under para. 13 of Notification dated 3‑9‑1979 for the excess surrendered area or the area resumed from the ineligible temporary lessees, which is free from all encumbrances and is not involved in any litigation, up to three months from the issue of these instructions. If no applications were received during the period and the petitioner was the only applicant within the or prescribed period his case should be considered in accordance with the instructions laid down for the grant of proprietary rights and if he fulfills the conditions and there is no such breach, the petitioner be allowed the proprietary rights. The revision petition is allowed with the above observations.
A.A./33.Rev.???????????????????????????????? ?????????????????? ??????????????????????????????????? Revision accepted.