ABDUR RAZZAQ vs ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, CO OPERATIVE FARMING SOCIETY, SAHIWAL AND 3Other
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a writ petition by the Lahore High Court, which upheld the ejectment of the petitioner from agricultural land. The core legal question concerned whether the petitioner's possession as a tenant under a Co-operative Farming Society was lawful and protected, despite the petitioner not being a member of the Society and the allotment lacking mandatory approval and being tainted by fraud. The Supreme Court held that findings of fact regarding fraudulent entry and lack of eligibility as a non-member were unexceptionable and warranted no interference. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming that unauthorized occupants acquiring land through manipulation cannot claim protection under tenancy laws.
- Whether an individual who is not a member of a Co-operative Farming Society is eligible to receive a valid land allotment for cultivation?
- Can an occupant who enters land through fraud and manipulation claim protection against ejectment under tenancy laws?
- Will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding fraudulent land occupation?
- Section 32, Colonization of Government Lands Act 1912
- Section 34, Colonization of Government Lands Act 1912
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.-Leave to appeal has been sought from the judgment dated 6-8- 1979 of the Lahore High Court whereby writ petition arising out of a land tenancy case was dismissed.
2. The petitioner claims that he was a tenant under a Co-operative Farming Society. According to him, the land was originally allotted to the Society. There was no other eligible tenant available and it was lying vacant. Accordingly the same was given on cultivation basis to the petitioner by the Society. He further claims that the action of the Society was approved by the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Farming Society (respondent No. 1).
3. The petitioner claims to have obtained possession in a lawful manner and subsequently remained in possession of the land as a cultivating tenant under the Society on payment of due rent to it.
4. After some time the Colony Assistant submitted a detailed report to the Collector of the District, who treating the petitioner as unauthorised occupant of Government land ordered his ejectment through proceedings under sections 32 and 34 of the Coloniza--tion of Government Lands Act on 7-4-1979. The petitioner filed an appeal which failed, and ultimately a revision which was dismissed by the learned Member, Board of Revenue, therefore, he moved the Lahore High Court in its writ jurisdiction. His petition having been dismissed by a learned Single Judge on 6-8-1979, be has sought leave to appeal.
5. Learned counsel has contended that the petitioner was a sub-tenant under the Co-operative Farming Society and that his tenancy was protected under paragraph 25 of the Land Reforms Regulation that the petitioner could not be proceeded against under section 32 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act, that even if it be assumed that the initial allotment in favour of the petitioner by the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Farming Society, was without the approval of the Collector and of the Commissioner it (approval was not a sine qua non for the allotment being valid under the law, and that although it is correct that the petitioner was not a member of the Society, it was not a legal requirement according to its bye-laws, that the land could not be allotted to a non-member for purposes of cultivation. The learned Member, Board of Revenue, in the order dated 21st June 1979, which was impugned before the High Court in the writ petition, gave the following decision against the petitioner ------------The petitioner has never been enrolled as a member of the Co-operative Farming Society and, therefore, was ineligible to get allot--ment of the land in his favour. The resolution dated 25-7-1975 has been manipulated by the petitioner's father who was then acting as Manager of the Society and was neither recommended by the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Farming Society nor it was confirmed by the District Collector in terms of bye-laws of the Society. As the petitioner has effected his entry into the land by forgery and fraud, therefore, he has been rightly rejected under section 32 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912------------------.."
6. The learned Single Judge in the High Court did not disturb any of the above-noted findings, rather the same have directly and indirectly been affirmed. There is no reason for us to interfere with the findings of fact. If the said findings remain in tact, there would be no justification for interference by this Court, as the petitioner would not be entitled to any relief whatsoever.
7. It is not a fit case for grant of leave to appeal. The petition accordingly is dismissed.