GHULAM MUHAMMAD and others vs MEMBER (COLONIES) and others

'KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY, J.--- This order shall dispose of C.P.L.As. Nos.3885, 3886, 3887, 3888, 3889, 3890, 3891, and 4107-L of 2002 which are directed against the same judgment, dated 5-9- 2002 passed by the Lahore High Court in Writ Petition No,18631 of 1998 through which judgment all these matters were also disposed of.

2. The petitioners before us claim to be owners of different pieces of land which were acquired by WAPDA for the construction of Chashma Barrage. The exercise also included resettlement of the land owners whose land had been so acquired by providing them alternate lands elsewhere. The petitioners were amongst the persons who were granted certificates entitling them to the allotment of alternate lands being 15 acres in case of each such land owner. After such entitlement certificates had been issued to various persons it came to the notice of the District Collector of Bhakkar that fraud had been committed at a massive scale as a result of which the persons who were not entitled to the alternate lands pursuant to the above-noticed scheme had also secured entitlement certificates for the grant of alternate lands. The Collector sought permission to review the orders granting alternate lands which permission was allowed and in pursuance whereof the District Collector reviewed all the cases in which the said entitlement certificates had been issued.

As a result of this exercise the entitlement certificates issued to the petitioners amongst others, were cancelled. The petitioners filed appeals before the Commissioner, Sargodha Division which appeals were allowed by the Additional Commissioner (Revenue) Sargodha Division of Sargodha and upon a Reference then made by the District Collector, the Board of Revenue took up all these matters in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction and after revising the above-mentioned appellate orders, set aside the same in the case of the petitioners who then challenged these revisional orders of the Board of Revenue before the High Court through various writ petitions filed by them which petitions have since been dismissed through the above-mentioned consolidated judgment delivered in Writ Petition No,18631 of 1998.

3. Hence these petitions.

4. The District Collector had annulled the entitlement of the petitioners essentially on the ground that the petitioners did not qualify for the grant of alternate lands as they did not satisfy the criterion laid down for the purpose. This factual determination by the District Collector was confirmed by the Board of Revenue through its revisional orders finding that in most of the cases before us even fraud had been committed by fraudulently forging the relevant document changing the classification of the acquired land in certain cases.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners at some .Length and have examined various orders and judgments passed in respect of the petitioners and have also gone through the available record and find that no exception could be taken to the facts as found by the District Collector which were confirmed by the Board of Revenue.

6. In this view of the matter all these petitions are dismissed. Leave refused.

7. It may be added that C.P.L.As. Nos.3886, 3890, 3891 and 4107-L of 2002 were filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation and are liable to be dismissed even on that score.