MAMMAN vs ABDUL AZIZ AND 6 Other
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court order dismissing a writ petition regarding the allotment of land under the Ejected Tenants Scheme. The petitioner, Mamman, claimed rights to the land based on a 1962 order declaring the original allottee, Abdul Majid, ineligible and protecting the petitioner's possession under the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912. The respondents, heirs of Abdul Majid, successfully challenged this in a revision before the Member, Board of Revenue, who found the 1962 orders were passed without lawful authority and that the petitioner was not a tenant entitled to protection. The core legal question was whether the petitioner established a valid entitlement to the land and whether the 1962 orders had attained finality. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any entitlement under the Ejected Tenants Scheme or status as a tenant under the Act. The Court affirmed that a petitioner must succeed on the strength of their own case, not the weakness of the respondents, and dismissed the petition.
- Can a petitioner succeed in a land dispute based solely on the alleged weakness of the respondent's case?
- Does a person in possession of land without a formal allotment qualify as a tenant under the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912?
- Can a sub-tenancy be created under the Ejected Tenants Scheme?
- Section 10, Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912
- Section 16, Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912
ORDER
M. S. H. QURESHI, J.-The land in question had been allotted to Abdul Majid (predecessor-in-interest of Abdul Aziz etc. Respondents Nos. 1 to 6), under the Ejected Tenants Scheme. On 13-7-1962, he was, however, held to be ineligible as the land was being actually cultivated by Mamman (present petitioner). An appeal said to have been filed by Abdul Majid was rejected on 28-11-1962 and the petitioner who was found in possession of the land for more than three years, was held not liable to be ejected in accordance with section 16 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912. This order was not given effect to till 1974 when mutation of inheritance of Abdul Majid was attested at No. 68 dated 28-6-1974 in favour of Abdul Aziz, etc. On the application of the petitioner, the mutation was, however, cancelled and the land was allotted to him by the Assistant Commissioner on 20-6-1975.Abdul Aziz, etc. Agitated the matter. They failed in appeal before the Additional Commissioner, but succeeded in revision before the Member, Board of Revenue. Their case was that Mamman, being the first cousin of Abdul Majid, was living jointly with him and upon his death became their guardian and cultivated the land on their behalf, that they being minors could not represent their case before the Assistant Commissioner on 13-7-1962, that the appeal against that order had been filed on behalf of Abdul Majid without their knowledge and without impleading them as party and that after securing the order dated 28-11-1962 in the appeal. Mamman had deliberately kept quiet over the matter so that they might not come to know of it. The learned Member, Board of Revenue, found that the order dated 13-7-1962, the original of which was not produced, declared only that Abdul Majid was not eligible but did not show that the land was ever resumed from him, that it had been passed behind the back of Abdul Aziz. Etc. And, therefore, was without lawful authority. As to Mamman, he held that he never having been allotted the land in question nor having been given its possession, was not a tenant within the meaning of section 10 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912 and, therefore, not entitled to claim the benefit of proviso to section 16. He, accordingly, by his order dated 17-3-1977, held that the orders passed against Abdul Aziz, etc. Including the one cancelling the mutation of inheritance No. 68, were illegal and directed that the land in question be restored to them and the unauthorised occupauts be ejected therefrom. ---Mamman challenged this order in Writ Petition No. 686 of 1977 before the Lahore High Court but the same was dismissed in limine by a short order dated 19-4-1977. He now seeks leave to appeal.
3. The main argument is that the order dated 13-7-1962, as confirmed by the Additional Commissioner in appeal on 28-11-1962, had attained finality and in consequence Abdul Aziz, etc. Had lost all rights in the land which had by necessary implication been resumed from them and then allotted to the petitioner. In view of the observation made by the learned Member, Board of Revenue and of the fact that no material has been placed to show the date of death of Abdul Majid, we are unable to see how the orders dated 13-7-1962 and 28-11-1962 can be said to have acquired finality qua Abdul Aziz, etc.
4. The basic question, however, is the petitioner's own entitlement to get the land. He has to stand on the strength of his own case and not on the weakness, if any, of Abdul Aziz, etc. The land had been given under the Ejected Tenants Scheme. It has not been shown that the petitioner was entitled under that scheme. On the facts of the case, he had also been rightly held not to be a tenant such as covered by section 10 or the then A existing proviso to section 16 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912. Learned counsel urged that the petitioner was a sub-tenant but he failed to show bow such sub-tenancy could be created or exist under the Ejected Tenants Scheme.
5. We thus find no merit in the petition which we accordingly dismiss and refuse grant of special leave to appeal.