MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN vs WALI MUHAMMAD and others
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had set aside an order of the Member, Board of Revenue, regarding the conferment of proprietary rights over state land. The core legal question was whether the respondent, a lessee under a 10-year cultivation scheme, was entitled to proprietary rights under a 1979 Government of the Punjab notification, and whether the High Court correctly interfered with the revenue authorities' decision. The Supreme Court observed that the Province of Punjab had already unsuccessfully challenged the High Court's judgment. Furthermore, the Court held that the respondent, as the established lessee of the disputed land, possessed a superior claim to proprietary rights compared to the petitioner. Finding no illegality or legal infirmity in the High Court's judgment, the Supreme Court declined to grant leave to appeal. The key principle affirmed is that a lessee under a government cultivation scheme holds a preferential claim to proprietary rights over third-party objectors, and the High Court retains jurisdiction to correct erroneous orders passed by revenue authorities.
- Does a lessee under a government temporary cultivation scheme have a superior claim to proprietary rights over a third-party objector?
- Can the High Court set aside an order of the Member, Board of Revenue, if it is passed without lawful authority?
- Article 199, Constitution of Pakistan 1973
ORDER
1. ' TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J.--- Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment, dated 18-10-1999 of the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High .Court, Lahore, whereby Writ Petition No,3597 of 1984 filed by respondent No,1, Wali Muhammad, was accepted setting aside the earlier order, dated 31- 5-1984 of the learned Member, Board of Revenue, Lahore, as having been passed without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
2. ' The facts briefly narrated are that admittedly respondent No,1 was a lessee of land measuring 74 Kanals, 17 Marlas under 10 years lease scheme from Kharif, 1969 onwards. The Government of the Punjab in the Colonies Department promulgated a notification on 3-9-1979 providing for conferment of proprietary rights on the lessees of temporary cultivation schemes. On the promulgation of this notification, the Collector allowed the respondent to secure proprietary rights vide his order, dated 14-10-1982. The present petitioner took objection to the same, which was allowed through an order dated 26-7-1983. The respondent filed an appeal before the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Faisalabad Division, Faisalabad, which was accepted vide his judgment, dated 19-12-1983. Again, the petitioner took exception to the same through revision petition and the learned Member,, Board of Revenue, Punjab, through his order, dated 31-5-1984 accepted the same. Being aggrieved of the above order, respondent No,1 filed aforesaid writ petition before the Lahore High Court, Lahore, which was accepted by a learned Single Judge through his judgment dated 18-10-1999, impugned herein. Hence, this petition for leave to appeal.
3. ' We have heard the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire documents placed on record with their assistance. At the very outset, Mr. Muhammad Ashraf Wahlah, learned counsel appearing for respondent No,1, has brought to our notice that the civil petition filed by the Province of Punjab against the impugned judgment has already been dismissed by this Court being barred by time. As far as the present petitioner is concerned, he has got no case to agitate qua the conferment of proprietary rights upon respondent No,1. Admittedly, respondent No,1 was the lessee of the disputed land and in the circumstances of the case he had got better claim over the proprietary rights as compared to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any illegality or legal infirmity in the impugned judgment warranting interference by this Court.
4. ' Resultantly, for what has been stated above, the present petition is dismissed and leave declined. #EndJudgment