Agha MUHAMMAD KAZIM vs MEMBER (COLONIES), BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB AND Other
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a Constitutional Petition by the High Court, which had upheld the decisions of the Board of Revenue denying the petitioner proprietary rights over certain agricultural land. The petitioner, an Advocate, had been cultivating the land as a sub-tenant of his brother, the original lessee under a Tender Scheme. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, despite being a practicing Advocate, qualified as an "actual tiller" of the soil entitled to retain the land or acquire proprietary rights under the prevailing government policy. The Board of Revenue had denied his claim based on a circular dated 7th February 1978, which disqualified practicing lawyers from being considered actual tillers. The Supreme Court, noting the undisputed fact that the petitioner was indeed cultivating the land as a sub-tenant, granted leave to appeal to examine the validity of the denial of proprietary rights. The Court ordered the maintenance of the status quo regarding possession pending the final hearing of the appeal, allowing the parties to supplement the existing record.
- Does a practicing lawyer qualify as an actual tiller of the soil for the purpose of acquiring proprietary rights under the Tender Scheme?
- Can a sub-tenant of a government lessee claim proprietary rights if the original lessee is found ineligible?
- Is a circular issued by the Board of Revenue sufficient to disqualify a class of persons from being considered actual tillers?
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD HALEEM, ACTG. C. J.-Admittedly the petitioner was a sub--tenant of some land in Squares Nos. 113 and 126 (lots Nos. 7 and 16) in Chak No. 125/15-L. Tehsil Khanewal, which was leased out to his brother along-with the other squares on 22nd of August, 1968, under the Tender Scheme for a period of 10 years. On the expiry of this period his brother applied for proprietary rights of the laud leased out to him. He was allowed to retain lots Nos. 5 and 14 which was entered in his name as "Khud Kasht" : but as for land included in the other lots, the grant was denied to him as he did not till the soil and instead the petitioner was recorded as a sub-tenant. The eligibility of the petitioner to retain it as a sub-tenant was not recognized as it was held that he was an Advocate and practised at Khanewal and therefore, he could not be regarded as the "actual tiller" by virtue of a circular of the Board of Revenue dated 7th of February, 1978. He was further asked to surrender the land in his possession. He appealed to the Commissioner and also filed a revision before the Board of Revenue but did not succeed. His Constitutional Petition was also dismissed.
2. This submission needs consideration as undisputedly he was cultivating the land as a sub-tenant of his brother who was the original lessee of the land and was found as ineligible to purchase the proprietary rights under the conditions laid down in this Notification. Accordingly, we would grant leave to appeal to the petitioner. Security for costs Rs. 2,000. In the meantime status quo as to possession. The appeal arising out of his petition shall be heard on the present record with liberty to the parties to file additional documents, if any.