Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: 2026 LHC 1564
Court / Jurisdiction: Lahore High Court (Honorable Mr. Justice Ch. Muhammad Iqbal)
Parties: PROVINCE vs AKHTAR ALI
Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Lahore High Court (Honorable Mr. Justice Ch. Muhammad Iqbal), officially reported as 2026 LHC 1564. In this matter between PROVINCE and AKHTAR ALI, the court adjudicated key questions of statutory construction, procedural regularity, and legal precedent under Pakistani law.
Core Holding: The honorable bench evaluated governing statutory provisions and judicial authorities to establish the rights of the parties, delivering the binding reasoning set out below.
COURT: Lahore High Court (Honorable Mr. Justice Ch. Muhammad Iqbal) DECISION DATE: 09-02-2026 TAGLINE: Civil Revision under Section 115 CPC- Concurrent findings of lower judicial fora--- Section 30(1), 30(2) and Section 36 of Colonization of Government Land Act, 1912--- Board of Revenue, Punjab vide notification dated 31.10.1995 withdrew the powers of District Collectors to make any orders of allotment or alternate allotment.? Post above notification Proprietary rights of state land were obtained from District Collector through fraud and misrepresentation -- Section 30(1) of the Colony Act, 1912 holds command qua the colony land even if proprietary rights granted, conveyance deed issued that always and ever remain subject to the statement of the conditions whereas under Section 30(2) of the Act ibid confers jurisdiction to Member Board of Revenue to undo any illegality or wrong committee or fraud played in obtaining such proprietary rights? Against order of Revenue hierarchy regarding resumption of the state land, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to enter into the vested jurisdiction of said statutory fora under Section 36 of the Act, 1912 ibid --- High Court is well within competence under section 115 CPC to reverse the concurrent illegal determinations of the lower judicial fora. Revision Petition Allowed. CASE DETAILS: Civil Revision-Civil Revision (against Decree)-Declaration 541-15 ============================================================ Stereo. H C J D A 38 JUDGMENT SHEET IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT BAHAWALPUR BENCH, BAHAWALPUR JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT JUDGMENT
C.R.No.541-D/2015
Province of Punjab through District Collector, Bahawalnagar etc.
VS.
Akhtar Ali etc.
Ch. Muhammad Iqbal, J:- Through this Civil Revision, the petitioner s have challenged the validity of the judgment & decree dated 25.11.2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Bahawalnagar who decreed the suit for declaration of the respondents and also assailed the judgment & decree dated 20.03.2015 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bahawalnagar who dismissed the appeal of the petitioners. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents/plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration alongwith permanent injunction against the petitioners/de fendants and contended that land measuring 104 Kanal situated in Chak No. 216/9-R, Tehsil Fortabbas was leased out to Lal Din, the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents/plaintiffs under Five Years Temporary Cultivation Lease Scheme. After the death of Lal Din, inheritance mutation was incorporated in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs. On 17.07.1995, proprietary rights were granted to the respondents/plaintiffs on the basis of order dated 30.08.1995 and Pata Malkiat was issued on 10.09.1995. The Colle ctor, Date of hearing 09.02.2026 Petitioners by Rai Mazhar Hussain Kharal, Assistant Advocate General Respondents by Syed Mujahid Ayub Wasti, Advocate C.R.No.541-D/2015
2 Bahawalnagar vide order dated 11.08.1998 forwarded a reference to the Member, Board of Revenue for cancellation of Pata Malkiat of the respondents/plaintiffs which was accepted on 14.03.2002. The respondents filed first review application which was dismissed by the Member, Board of Revenue on 11.02.2009. The respondents filed second review application which was also dismissed on 18.05.2009. The respondents/ plaintiffs challenged the validity of orders of the revenue hierarchy through civil suit. The petitioners/ defendants filed contesting written statement and contended that the suit land was never given/allotted to the predecessor -in-interest of the respondents whereas Pata Malkiat was obtained on the basis of fraud as such it was cancelled and land was resumed in favour of the state. The trial Court framed issues, recorded evidence of the parties and decreed the suit vide judgment & decree dated 25.11.2013. The petitioners filed an appeal which was dismissed by the appellate Court vide judgment & decree dated 20.03.2015. Hence, this civil revision. 3. Arguments heard. Record perused. 4. The controversy involved in this case is centered upon Issue No.1 which is reproduced as under: “Whether plaintiffs are owner in possession of suit property and impugned orders of defendants dated 11.08.1998, 14.3.2002, 11.02.2009 and 18.05.2009 are against the law and facts, ex-parte without notice and are liable to be set aside, if so, on what grounds? OPP” To dislodge the onus of the aforesaid issue Akhtar Ali (P.W.1) appeared as sole witness and reiterated the assertions made in the plaint. During cross examination, he deposed that: "اراضی متدعویہ میرے دادا کو الاٹ ہوئی تھی۔ اراضی کاشت پانچ سال کیلئے الاٹ ہوئی تھی۔ سال1975 لیکر سے 1980 تک کیلئے الاٹ ہوئی تھی۔۔۔۔ ہمارا دادا سال1978 میں فوت ہو گیا تھا۔۔۔توسیع ا ہوئی مجھے اس بارے میں علم نہ ہے۔ سال 1979 میں میرے وا ے درواات قوق لکیت زاار تھی۔۔۔ میرا والد 2002 میں فوت ہو گیا تھا۔۔۔ میں ے فیصلہ رقبہ کے خلاف BOR میں نظر ثانی دا۔"
C.R.No.541-D/2015
3 Conversely, Adil Khan, Colony Clerk (D.W.1) deposed that: "رقبہ متدعویہ مدعیان کو کبھی بھی کسی بھی سکیم کے تحت الاٹہوا ہے۔ اور نہ ہی باضابطہ دخل دیا گیا ہے اور نہ ہی مدعیان ے تابع نوٹس 79 کوئی درواات قوق لکیت دا29.06.95 کو ا درواات دائر کرتے ہوئے استدعا کی گئی کہ رقبہ متدعویہ عارضی کاشت میں الاٹ کیا گیا ہے جس کی اصل مسل گم ہو چکی ہے۔ مث ن ہ مسل پر پٹہ مسل ارر کیا اروے جس پر غیر صدیق الاٹمنٹ یر اننونی خلاف واقعات 17.7.95 کو پٹہ لکیت یر اننونی طور پر ارر کر دیا گیا جو بعد پڑتال و اارزت نظر ثانی تمام احکامات متدعویہ منسوخ کر تے ہوئے پٹہ لکیت کی منسوخی کے لئے بورڈ آف ریونیو کو تحریر کہا گیا اور رقبہ بحق سرکار ضبط کر لیا گیا۔ رقبہ متدعویہ سے مدعیان کا کوئی تعلق واسطہ نہ ہے۔"
5. The respondents alleged that the suit land was initially leased out to Lal Din, the predecessor -in-interest of the respondents/plaintiffs under Five Years Temporary Cultivation Scheme in 1975 but in this regard no lease granting order was ever produced by the respondents/plaintiffs and without any valid lease order, the alleged allotment order was obtained by the respondents of the state land measuring 104 Kanal situa ted in Chak No.216/9-R, Tehsil Fortabbas, District Bahawalnagar . The respondents/plaintiffs did not produce any alleged Pata Malkiat and by practicing fraud and concealment of facts, gave application in the year 1992 for grant of proprietary rights or its alternate allotment and the District Collector issued order for alternate allotment of land to the predecessor -in-interest of the respondents/plaintiffs and issued Pata Malkiat whereas the Board of Revenue, Punjab vide notification No.4967 -95/4115-CL.III dated 31.10.1995 has held that the District Collector is not competent to allot alternate land as such the District Collectors were barred to make any such orders of allotment or alternate allotment. For ready reference, notification dated 31.10.1995 is reproduced as under:- “Subject: - Allotment of alternate land under Grow More Food Scheme, Ejected Tenants Scheme and Temporary Cultivation Lease Scheme dated 03.09.1979 & 20.04.1983
MR. Shahzad Hassan Pervez, Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue, Punjab. C.R.No.541-D/2015
4 Memorandum: Reference this office circular No.1144 -A-95/1016-CI, dated 27.07.1995, on the above subject. 2. It has been noticed that allotment of alternate land under Grow More Food Scheme and Ejected Tenant Scheme is being made irrespective of the fact whe ther the allottee applied before the cut off date i.e. 31.03.1981 and further that the last date for finalization of these cases i.e. 30.06.1989 as provided in Board of Revenue memo. No. 390 -87/2460-CL.III, dated 4.5.1988 read with memo, No. 4591 -89/4464-CL.III, dated 20.9.1989 has lapsed. 3. Similarly the lessees whose tenancies were out-side the prohibited zone on the crucial date i.e. 3.9.1979 or 20.4.1983, as the case may be, when provision for grant of proprietary rights were made, were to be allowed to select and apply for alternate land out-side the prohibited zone upto 30.6.1989 and thereafter Collector concerned could not entertain any claim as conveyed vide Colonies Department circular No. 390 - 86/2498-CLI, dated 08.05.1988. 4. Instances have come to the notice of the Board of Revenue that Collectors have allotted alternate land to the allottees/lessees under the afore-mentioned four schemes even after the last date provided for the purpose as mentioned above. 5. You are, therefore, requested to scrutinize all such cases wherein alternate allotments have been made by you or your predecessor after the crucial dates and a report on case to case basis be forwarded to the Board of Revenue within a month positively. 6. The Board of Revenue has, further, been pleased to order that in future no alternate allotment shall be made by the District Collectors but cases of genuine allottees whose eligibility stands determined by a competent authority/Court at any forum shall be forwarded to the Board of Revenue for scrutiny. After the receipt of permission of the Board of Revenue in this regard, the District Collector will then proceed to make allotment of state land available free of encumbrances and out of prohibited zone”.
6. Further, as the allotment order obtained by the respondents/plaintiffs is based on fraud and forgery which garners no sanctity in the eyes of law as fraud vitiates the most solemn proceedings and any edifice so raised on the basis of such fraudulent tran saction, that stand automatically dismantled and any ill -gotten gain achieved by fraudster cannot be validated under any norms of laws.1
1 Nawab Syed Raunaq Ali etc. Vs. Chief Settlement Commissioner & Others (PLD 1973 SC 236) , Lahore Development Authority Vs. Firdous Steel Mills (Pvt.) Limited (2010 SCMR 1097) and Mst. Nazeeran and others Vs. Ali Bux and others (2024 SCMR 1271) C.R.No.541-D/2015
5 7. Furthermore, Section 30(1) of the Act ibid provides that the allottee/lessee in respect of state land shall always be bound by the conditions set out in Schedule II of the Act ibid and the provisions of the Act ibid shall be applicable to the proprietors of such land. For ready reference, Section 30(1) of the Act ibid is reproduced as under: “30. Acquisition of propri etary right. – (1) Notwithstanding anything entered in any statement of conditions issued under the Government Tenants (Punjab) Act, 1893, a tenant who, either in pursuance of any such condition or otherwise by agreements with, or under rules issued by the Provincial Government, has acquired proprietary right in any land included in his tenancy shall in respect of such land cease to be subject to any statement of conditions issued under the above -mentioned Act; provided always that he shall in respect of suc h land be bound by the conditions set out in Schedule II of this Act and be bound by the other provisions of this Act applicable to proprietors of land.” Under the above provision once land owned by the government is declared in the colony area that would always remain under the subject of the Act ibid. Further, grant of colony land through conveyance deed etc. is not absolute sale and nature and character of the said land remains as colony land and Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 is app licable to the subject land despite the grant of proprietary rights and its execution through conveyance deed.2 8. Further, u nder Section 30(2) of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912, the Board of Revenue has jurisdiction to take cognizance of the matter wherein the lease or proprietary rights whereof were obtained through misrepresentation of the real facts or by practicing fraud and the said authority has been empowered to cancel the said allotment of a state land which was obtained by means of fraud and
2 Muhammad Siddique and others Vs. Muhammad Sharif and others (2012 SCMR 1387) C.R.No.541-D/2015
6 misrepresentation. For the facility of ready reference , Section 30(2) of the Act ibid is reproduced as under:- "30. Acquisition of Proprietary rights . (2) if, at any time, the Board of Revenue is satisfied that any person had acquired under this Act, tenancy rights in respect of any land by means of fraud or misrepresentation or was not eligible to have such rights for any reason whatsoever then notwithstanding the acquisition of proprietary rights by such person in such land or the terms and conditions of any agreement with or rules issued by the Provincial Government and without prejudice to any other liability or penalty to which such person may be liable under any law for the time being in force, the Board of Revenue may, after giving such person a reasonable opportunity of showing cause, pass an order resuming the land in respect of which proprietary rights have been acquired or reduce the area of such land or pass such order as it may deem fit.” In Mian Asghar Ali’s case3, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan held as under:- “4. Review Petitioner challenged the said judgment through Civil Petitions No.2466 to 2468 of 2004, before this Court, wherein leave was declined vide judgme nt dated 16.12.2004; since reported as Mian Asghar Ali v Province of Punjab through District Collector and others (2006 SCMR 936), operative part whereof is reproduced here in below:- “Independent thereof any intervention with the impugned order would tantamount to encouraging perpetuation of patent illegal devices to protect the illegitimate gains reaped by the political vultures for unjust enrichment at the cost of public exchequer which has eroded the very moral fabric of the society.” 13. We have examined the record with the assistance of Petitioner and l earned ASC for the Respondents. As noted in the narrative above, in detail that the order for the cancellation of conveyance deed through private treaty (dated 29.10.1994), was passed by the Member (Colonies) BoR through detailed order dated 4.7.98 (page 78 CPLA NO.2364 of 2015) pursuant to various representation and essentially on the directions made in WP No. 4039 of 1995. Therefore, it cannot be said that the impugned sale was either cancelled on the direction of the Chief Minister or for that matter in dictated exercise of jurisdiction/force command, of the Chief Executive of the Province. It may be observed that it was the Review Petitioner, as observed by this Court, in earlier round culminated into judgment reported as Mian Asghar Ali (Supra) who “exerted political influences with provincial hierarchy got 8 marlas plus prime commercial land situated within the compound of Municipal Committee, Sahiwal from Member BOR, securing relaxation of ban from Chief Minister, Punjab, precipitating in sale deed dated 29.10.1994, in violation of Municipal committee’s Policy keeping the later in darkness” against, which the Civil Review Petitions, were also dismissed as withdrawn and matter of cancellation of conveyance deed for all practical purposes attained finality and a fait accompli. No exception to the cancellation of sale deed obtained by the Review petitioner by misrepresentation and through
3 Mian Asghar Ali Vs Govt. of Punjab through Secretary (Colonies) BOR, Lahore & Others (2017 SCMR 118) C.R.No.541-D/2015
7 fraudulent means, by the Member (C) BOR, under section 30(2) of Colonization of Government Land Act, 1912 could now be agitated in subsequent proceedings, founded entirely on different cause of action obliquely. 14. It may not be out of place to mention that the controversy raised by the Petitioner culminating into present Review Petition is not arising out of the order (dated 4.7.1998), of cancellation of sale deed by way of private treaty but, the order dated 16.06.2010 passed by the Member (Colonies) BoR, whereby his request for the allotment of alternate land was declined for valid reasons.” (emphasis supplied) This principle has been reiterated in Province of Punjab through Collector, Sheikhupura VS Anjuman Talim-ul-Islam and others”.4 9. Further, Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, confers an inherent jurisdiction to an authority or its successor authority to reverse its earlier erroneous or illegal order. Similarly, if any benefit has been obtained from authority by practicing misrepresen tation or fraud, the same forum is vested with inbuilt inherent jurisdiction to undo its such wrong. In this regard, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in Muhammad Baran’s case5 has held that if any order is obtained from the authorities through misrepr esentation, fraud and forgery, in that eventuality the same authority can undo such an illegal order either on its own motion or on the information received to it through any application. In such like matter, the superior Courts can withheld the exercise o f their discretionary writ jurisdiction to annul the order of authority, even though it was clearly without jurisdiction. Reliance is also placed on Dadu Khan’s case6. 10. As per available revenue record, the land in question is state land which is admit tedly a public asset and the Courts of law are ultimate custodian of the public properties, public interest and while dealing with matters relating to such properties/assets or interests, it is inalienable obligation of the courts to be
4 Province of Punjab through Collector, Sheikhupura VS Anjuman Talim -ul-Islam and others ” (PLD 19 87 SC 123) , “Syed Mazhar Hussain Shah through L.Rs VS Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and others ” (2006 SCMR 959) and Muhammad Manzoor VS Province of Punjab and others (2011 CLC 494 Lahore) 5 Muhammad Baran and others Vs. Member (Settlement and Rehabilitation) Board of Revenue Punjab and others (PLD 1991 SC 691) 6 Dadu Khan (deceased) through LRs and 3 others Vs. Ghulam Abbas and 23 others (2022 SCMR 1893) C.R.No.541-D/2015
8 extraordinary careful and cautious and assure itself to the extent of certainty that no mischief is being played with the state assets. An unalienable obligation is placed upon the courts to keep abreast itself with law and facts of such cases and when certain material facts unearthed before it then the matter should be decided as per law even without being influenced by respective pleadings of the parties.7 11. In response to the objection of learned counsel for the respondents that if the state land was illegally allotted by the Collector, then what action has been taken against the delinquent officer/official, learned Law Officer has filed a copy of the inquiry report and submitted that on receiving the complaints regarding illegally issuing of the Pata Malkiat of state la nds in various districts including the Pata Malkiat issued by Malik M. Feroz Khan, the then Collector, the then Chief Minister initiated an inquiry. That Malik M. Feroz Khan remained posted as Collector, Bahawalnagar w.e.f 19.08.1991 to 04.01.1993. The Inquiry Committee observed that total number of Pata Malkiat under reference are 3225. In paragraph No.12 of the said report, it was found that 191 cases of irregular or illegal allotments and grant of proprietary rights / Pata Malkiat of state land measuring 23554 Kanal was disposed of during the period of Malik M. Feroz Khan. The findings of the Inquiry Committee submitted through a summary to the then Chief Minister are reproduced as under: “12. The Committee, through scrutiny of the record, has detected 191 cases of irregular allotments in which serious irregularities and Ille galities have been committed while granting P.Rs. and patta milkiyats to the respective allottees. The total area that has been allotted irregularly comes to about 23554 kanals and p ertains to the incumbency period of Malik
7 Order dated 20.01.2026 rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in C.P.L.A No.1600-L/2014 titled as Province of Punjab through District Officer Revenue/Collector, District Bhakkar & 3 others Vs. Zulfiqar & 8 others ., Al-Shafique Housing Society Vs. P.M.A (PLD 1992 SC 113) , Abdul Haq Indher Vs. Province of Sindh (2007 SCMR 907), Taj Muhammad Vs. Town Committee (1994 CLC 2214) and Sindh Peoples Welfare Trust Vs. Government of Sindh (2005 CLC 713) C.R.No.541-D/2015
9 Muhammad Ferozo Khan. Scheme -wise and tehsil -wise detail of the same in given as, under:- S.No. Title of Scheme
Tehsil No. of irregular allotment cases Total allotted area 1. Grow More Food i)Fortabbas 35 4599-19 ii)Haroonabad 4 403-08 iii)Chishtian 14 1426-16 Total 53 6419-3 2. Temporary Cultivation i)Fortabbas 71 7801-8 ii)Haroonabad 7 892-0 iii)Chishtian 60 8441-3 Total 138 17143- 11
13. List indicating the cases of irregular/illegal grant of P.Rs. and patta milkiyats alongwith the nature of irregularities committed and the officers/officials found responsible is at Annex.D & E. D efective cases are mainly those in which alternate land was allowed to allottees falling in prohibited zones and P.Rs. were conferred. ................. 38. The following illegalities and irregularities are found to have been committed while granting P.Rs. and patta milkiyats under temporary cultivation schemes:- i) 72 Patta milki yats (conveyance deed) for 8072.kanals of land have been allowed by Malik Muhammad Foroze Khan by ignoring the condition of 90% cultivation level essentially required to be achieved by the allottee before grant of patta milkiyat. List at Annex.N. The files indicate that patta milkiyats have been allowed by him despite report by the field staff that the land, in question was "Ghair Mumkin tibba". ii) Proprietary rights were given by Malík Muhammad Feroze Khan in 62 cases of allotments of temporary cultivation schemes, i1legally as the applications to the effect of exercise of option by the respective allottees were made after expiry of the cut of date i.e. 29.2.1980 and 31.5.1983 fixed by the B.O.R. vide notifications of 3.9.1979 and 20.4.8 3 respectively. List of such cases at Annex.O. C.R.No.541-D/2015
10 iii) Malik Muhammad Feroze Khan former Dy. Commissioner, Bahawalnagar allowed alternate land to 68 allottees of temporary cultivation scheme in 1ieu of their allotted lands falling in the prohibited zones aga inst the policy of BOR which provide this facility to only those allottees whose lands wer e initially outside the prohibited zone but came within prohibited zone on account of extension in city limits, whereas the city limits had not been extended in Bahaw alnagar. List of such cases is at Annex.P. Malik Muhammad Feroze Khan has even granted alternate land to allottees falling in non - prohibited zone. List of 33 such cases is at Annex.O. iv) Allotment of surplus land of lessees, for which they were not to be allowed P.Rs. was allowed to be made to zaily mazaraeen (sub -tenants) for grant of P.Rs. vide BOR policy instructions notifi ed vide No.3215-79/3973- CIII dated 3.9.79. The maximum limit was 12 1/2 acres per eligible sub -tenant of surplus land. The date for making application by the sub -tenants under this policy expired on 30.4.80. No such right was granted under the subsequent policy notified by the B.O.R. in the year 1983. Hence allotment and gran t of P.Rs to zaily mozareen (sub tenants) on the application made after the above mentioned cut of date is without lawful authority. Malik Muhammad Feroze Khan has allowed allotment of land to 29 zaily mozaraeen after the afore -mentioned cut of date. The a llotment is, therefore, illegal. List of such cases is at Annex.B. v) It has been detected that in nine cases the. P.Rs. and patta milkiyats were granted despite the fact that their land stood resumed long ago and they had also exhausted the appellate foru ms for restoration of their allotments. List of such cases is at Annex.S. ………. 41. Malik Muhammad Feroze Khan, former Dy. Commissioner, Bahawalnagar is responsible for all the illegal allotments detected during the scrutiny, lists of which are placed at Annex. D&E. He seems to have dolled out state land in all 191 cases in a kingsly manner, not caring for the rules policy pro visions and instructions issued by the BOR from time to time. His irresponsible attitude has resulted into fraudulent and illegal allotment 23554.kanals during his tenure as Deputy Commissioner, Bahawalnagar. …………. 43. Case files of irregular allotments detected during the scrutiny indicates that in most of the cases the decision for grant of proprietary rights has been given on the same date on which the application was made. The, cases were processed in a great hurry and normal procedure of obtaining, f ield report was ignored or not considered necessary. The cases indicate C.R.No.541-D/2015
11 that Malik Muhammad Feroze Khan, former Deputy Commissioner used to endorse applications of the allotte e to the Head Clerk, Colony by putting his initials. The Colony Clerk (Sayya h Navees) prepared note on the note sheet and routed it through Head Clerk (Colony) to the Deputy Commissioner. In some of the cases he submitted report, to the Deputy Commissioner directly by-passing the normal channels of Head Clerk and General Assistant Colo ny. Some of the reports submitted by Sayyah Navees are grossly…
Read the unabridged text and precedent citation network on Al Wakeelo Legal Research Platform.