ABDUR RAHMAN BHATTI And Another vs MEMBER (COLONIES), BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB, LAHORE And ANOTHER

MUHAMMAD AKHTAR SHABBIR, J.---The writ petitioners owners/proprietors of agricultural land measuring 255 Kanals, 10 Marlas situated in Mauza Rakhwan, Tehsil Karor Lal Easan, District Layyah had applied for exchange of their proprietary land with State land situated in Chak No.11/UCC, Tehsil Ferozewala, District Sheikhupura to the Board of Revenue Punjab, Lahore. Their case was assessed but resultantly vide letter dated 11-4-1998 by the Board of Revenue the petitioners were informed that the request of-exchange of land has been considered and filed under the existing policy and rules. The petitioners have voiced their grievance against the said order/letter and prayed for setting aside the same.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the petitioners have been treated discriminately and the respondents have allowed the exchange of land from one colony to another colony to some other influential persons.

3. On the other hand, the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners have been vehemently opposed by the learned Law Officer contending that the case of the petitioners as not fit for exchange of their land with some other land out of the.D1sirlct

4. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, perused the record and examined the law. Section 17 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912 empowered the Collector to allow the exchange of the land which reads as under:-- "Section 17. Exchange.---Subject to any orders that he may receive from the (Executive District Officer (Revenue), the Collector may allow any tenant to exchange the whole or any part of his tenancy for other land in the colony, and the land so taken in exchange shall, in the absence of any special conditions to the contrary recorded in writing by the Collector, be deemed to be held on the same conditions and subject to the same obligations as the surrendered land was held."

The above referred proposition of law authorized the Collector to allow any tenant to exchange his land. The tenant under the Colonization of Government Lands Act would mean a purchaser from Government of land who has been placed in possession of the land by order of the Collector shall be `deemed' to be a `tenant' of such land until the full amount of the purchased money without any interest due thereon has been paid and the other conditions set forth in the statement of conditions of sale issued by the Collector have been fulfilled. It would mean that a person remains a tenant under the Government till he pays 'the full amount of purchase to the Government and after payment of full price of the land he becomes absolutely owner of the same and the property comes out of the ambit of the Colony/Revenue hierarchy. Reference in this context can be made to the cases of Ilam Din v. Muhammad Din PLD 1964 SC 842; Ali Muhammad v. Mst. Rabia Bibi and 3 others PLD 1971 (B.J.) 38 and Azmat Ali v. Member, Board of Revenue and others PLD 1978 Lah. 1148.

5. The petitioners are the proprietors of the land and not the tenants thus, section 17 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act is not attracted to their case on the following grounds; firstly they have ceased to be tenant of the land and secondly that the Collector is empowered to allow exchange in the same colony only but the petitioners have applied for exchange of their land from one colony to another colony and the Government enjoys only this power. The request of the petitioners had been declined by the Board of Revenue having authority of the Government.

Paragraph No.364 of the Colonies instruction provided in Colony Manual contemplates that the land purchased at auction or otherwise cannot be exchanged without the express order of the Government which should only be sought in exceptional cases. Similarly no application for exchange can be entertained once proprietary rights have been acquired in a grant. There is no denial to the factum that the petitioners have acquired the proprietary rights of their land situated in Tehsil Keror Lal Easan. It is the policy of the Government ordinarily not to allow exchange of the proprietary land with the State land ordinarily which discretion/jurisdiction of the Government cannot be interfered with by the High Court in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction. The IC learned counsel for the petitioners, when confronted with the above legal as well as factual position of the case could not respond and failed to persuade the Court to interfere in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.

6. For the foregoing reasons, this writ petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed.