Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: PEHLWAN VS Respondent: MEMBER (COLONIES), BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJABHonorable Justice Ali Hussain Qazilbash
1988 S C M R 231
1988 S C M R 231
Present: Muhammad Haleem, C.J., Nasim Hasan Shah, Shafiur Rahman, Saad Saood Jan and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ
PEHLWAN and 3 others--Appellants
versus
MEMBER (COLONIES), BOARD OF REVENUE PUNJAB and 3 others Respondents
Civil Appeal No.154 of 1983, decided on 31st October, 1987.
(From the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 16-12-1981, passed in Writ Petition No.5035 of 1980).
Ejected Tenants Scheme--
---State land--Allotment of--Appellants' application for grant of proprietary rights over the suit land, allegedly allotted to them under Ejected Tenants Scheme, rejected by Collector--Appeal and revision petition of appellants dismissed by Commissioner and Board of Revenue respectively and writ petition also dismissed by High Court--Appellants in occupation of land in dispute for quite a long time and had been paying its land revenue but there was no evidence to show that they were so occupying same under some authority-- Roznamcha Waqiati relied upon by appellants not indicating that land was allotted to them--Appellants unable to controvert the factual position--Appellants, held, had no right whatsoever to claim any ownership rights Appeal dismissed.
Abid Hasan Minto, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh.Masood Akhtar, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Appellants.
M.Nawaz Abbasi, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, instructed by S.Abid Nawaz, Advocate-on-Record (Absent) for Respondents 1 to 3.
M.A.Zafar, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch.Mehtab Mehdi Advocate-on-record (absent) for Respondent No.4.
Date of hearing: 31st October, 1987.
JUDGMENT
ALI HUSSAIN QAZILBASH, J.--This is an appeal by leave against the order of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, dated 16th December, 1981, whereby the constitutional petition of the appellants was dismissed.
2. The facts are that Pehlwan appellant and three others are occupants of Killas No.13 to 20 of Square No.3 in Chak No.514/G. B. , Tehsil Samundri, District Faisalabad, since 26-6-1957 and it is alleged that the same was allotted to them under the Ejected Tenants Scheme by the Collector, Faisalabad, on 12-6-1957, vide Roznamcha Waqiati No.523. The area occupied is 69 kanals 5 marlas. It is also alleged that the appellants have been paying regularly the revenue charges and other dues of the property since its alleged allotment. It so happened that somewhere in 1979 the appellants submitted an application to the Collector for grant of proprietary rights over the suit land but the same was rejected on 16-4-1979. The appeal and the revision petition of the appellants were dismissed by the Commissioner, Sargodha Division, and Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab, on 18-11-1979 and 3-4-1980, respectively. Ultimately the appellants filed a writ petition in the High Court which was also dismissed on 16-12-1981.
3. Leave was granted in this case to consider the propriety of the impugned orders.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. The Revenue authorities upto the level of the Member, Board of Revenue, have turned down the claim of the appellants for the grant of proprietary rights in respect of the suit land. The High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction also non-suited the appellants by observing:
"The original register of allotment has been summoned. It is evident that the petitioner was never allotted the land in question. There is no doubt that he has been paying the lagans of the land and even the challans had been approved by the revenue authorities for payment of lagan but the fact remains that his occupation of the land was unauthorized throughout. The petitioners, therefore, has no right in the land. The writ petition is dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs."
We have considered the case of the appellants and we find that the same lacks merits. It is true that the appellants have been in occupation of the land in question for quite a long time and have been paying its land revenue but it is equally true that there is not an iota of evidence to show that they were so occupying it under some authority. The Roznamcha Waqiati, on which the appellants have based their case, does not at all indicate that the land was allotted to the appellants and this factual position could not be controverted by the learned counsel for the appellants before us.
4. The view, therefore, we have formed is that the appellants have no right, whatsoever, to claim any ownership rights. The appeal thus fails and is dismissed with costs.
S.Q./P-23/S Appeal dismissed