JALAL Versus SOHAN LAL
ORDER
This is a revision petition against the order dated 5‑6‑1971 of the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Lahore Division by which he rejected the appeal of the petitioner Jalal in respect of certain State land situated in Chak No. 371/G. B, Tehsil Nankana, District Sheikhupura.
2. The brief facts of the case are that land comprising Khasra Nos. 8, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17/2, 18 to 23 of square No. 69, measuring 92 kanals and 2 marlas, situated in Chak No. 371/GB, was allotted to Sohan Lal the respondent under the pedigree Livestock Breeding Scheme by the Collector Sheikhupura and it was also ordered that file of illicit cultivation be started against Jalal, the unauthorised occupant. The petitioner Jalal being dissatisfied with this order filed an appeal in the Court of Additional Commissioner, Lahore on the ground that the disputed area had already been leased out to him on tender basis and he is in its cultivating possession. Therefore, he urged that the disputed land may now be given to him. The Additional Commissioner, Lahore on 29‑5‑1971 rejected the appeal. Hence this revision petition.
3. This case was partly heard on 8‑12‑1971 when apart from some arguments, and hearing Jalal petitioner whose state ment was also recorded, the case was adjourned to 21‑12‑71 for obtaining a report from the D. C. about the status of Jalal petitioner during the relevant periods of Kharif 1969 to Kharif 1970, whether his occupation was legal or illicit on the area in dispute. The petitioner and his learned counsel were also clearly told on the 8th December 1971 that whatever proof could be produced to show that Jalal was in authorised posses sion of the land in dispute or any other documentary evidence to substantiate his claim should be produced on the hearing on 21‑12‑1971.
4. The case was heard again on the 21‑12‑1971 when the report of the D. C. Sheikhupura dated 20‑12‑1971 was seen. The learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent Sohan Lai were heard in considerable detail and Jalal petitioner, Ali Akbar, Patwari of the Chak, Alim‑ud‑Din Head Clerk Colony, D. C. Office, Sheikhupura were examined and their statements recorded.
5. The learned counsel for Jalal the petitioner has tried to substantiate his claim on the following main grounds. These are dealt with below ad seriatim in accordance with the grounds stated by him in the revision petition:
(a) that the land in dispute had been under cultivating possession of the petitioner for the last 12/ 14 years.
This statement is not borne out by the report of the D. C. dated 20‑12‑1971. According to this report and according to the entries of Khasra Girdawari the land in dispute was cultivated in 1960‑61 by Sohan son of Nazam Din and in Rabi 1961 it was in unauthorised possession of Sardar son of Nawab and Parvez son of Sikandar. In Kharif 1961 and Rabi 1962 Jalal petitioner is shown as Ghair Dakhilkar for the land, in dispute. From Kharif 1963 to Rabi 1966 Barkat son of Imam Din was allotted the area under dispute under Border Scheme. Jalal worked as a tenant under him. During 1967‑68 Jalal petitioner secured the land in dispute through tender for which he paid the money. In the subsequent harvests, he remained in unauthorised occu pation of the land. The learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to prove through the entry in the Khasra Girdawari for the subsequent harvests up to Rabi 1971, where Jalal has been shown as Ghair Dakhilkar that he was in authorised possession of the land. This has, however, been dispelled by Jalal himself in his statement before me that after 1968 he had made a petition to the D. C. that the land should be given to him on tender and that he was prepared to pay the rent for it, but no intimation was received by him from the Deputy Commissioner on account of which he could not pay any rent for the land. The Colony Head Clerk has also stated before me vide his recorded statement that this land was not offered on tender after 1968 because the land was being reserved for different Schemes and this land was excluded from any temporary cultivation scheme. He has also stated that no application from Jalal was received in the office of the Deputy Commissioner that the land may be given to him on tender and rent recovered from him. Ali Akbar Shah, the present Patwari of the Chak has also explained the entries of Ghair Dakhilkar in the subsequent harvests after 1968. Accord ing to him as petitioner Jalal had been shown as Ghair Dakhilkar during the years 1967‑68 the than Patwari of the Halqa continued to carry on the same entry obviously without any verifications. It could even be that Sardar Mohammad the then Patwari was in league with Jalal petitioner in hiding his illicit cultivation and unauthorisedly showed him as Ghair Dakhilkar. It is well known and it is a common practice that illicit cultivation is indulged in with the connivance and support of the field Patwari. The position therefore is, as it finally emerges that so far as the land in dispute is concerned Jalal petitioner was in authorised possession only during 1967‑68 and in subsequent periods he has been in unauthorised occupation of the State land.
(b), (c), (h). That Sohan Lal respondent has already been given a Lambardari square on Horse Breeding Scheme and that under Memo. No. 1838‑71/1729‑CV, dated 12‑5‑71. Paragraph 7, he was not entitled to more than one grant, consequently the present grant under the Pedigree Livestock Breeding Scheme should be cancelled, from him.
Neither the learned counsel for the petitioner nor the peti tioner himself according to his recorded statement have been able to substantiate this ground and to establish that Sohan Lal respondent has any Horse Breeding Grant. During the course of the examination of Jalal petitioner it came to light that during British days Sohan Lal's father Sundar Das had been given some Lambardari grant which has since become proprie tary land. An examination of the Jamabandi of 1968‑69 which the Patwari presented at the time of hearing did not show any further grant on Horse Breeding Condition etc. According to the Jamabandi Sohan Lal now owns 32 acres in squares Nos. 16 and 11. He also obtained some land in square No. 62 in auction. These grounds have, therefore, not been substantiated by the petitioner or his learned counsel.
(d) The learned counsel has relied on memorandum No. 9590/60/6243‑C(G), dated 15‑9‑60, This memorandum laid down as follows:
"It was not intended to apply this directive to any temporary cultivator such as holding the State land on tenders on year to year basis. In fact the underlying idea was that pending the decision of the question of Policy, regular allottees under an approved Scheme i.e. the re‑settlement of landless and ejected tenant Scheme. Grow Mora Food Scheme etc. should not be disturbed.
You are, therefore, requested that the allotment to the selectees under the Pedigree Livestock Breeding Scheme of such resumed Lambardari squares as are given on temporary cultivation should not be stayed, but the selectees should get possession of the land and go ahead, in accordance with the statement of conditions."
It is obvious that this memorandum is not applicable in the case of the petitioner as he was not a regular allottee under an approved Scheme. If anything, this memorandum goes against the petitioner, because the allotments to the selectees under the Pedigree Livestock Breeding Scheme were not to be stayed but the selectees were to get the possession of the land.
(e) The learned counsel has relied on memorandum No. 11260/60/7616‑C (G), dated the 22‑11‑1960. This memo randum reads as follows:
"The Board of Revenue had under consideration a question as to whether the resumed Lambardari lots at present allotted under the ejected tenant scheme or any other approved scheme of Government should or should not be resumed and re‑allotted under the Pedigree Livestock Breeding Scheme. It was felt that these lots are made available for utilization under the Pedigree Livestock Scheme provided no pro blem of any magnitude was likely to be created and the sitting tenants were given suitable alternative accommodations."
It would be seen that this memorandum is not also applicable to the case of the petitioner as he was not an allottee of the State land under any approved Scheme of the Government but was in fact an unauthorised occupant. He could not therefore claim any benefit as such.
(f) The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on Board of Revenue Telegram No. 2406‑71/114‑CLI, dated 15‑5‑1971. This telegram reads as follows:
"It has been noticed that in some cases eligible cultivators of State land during Kharif 1969 to Kharif 1970 have been dispossessed and the land in their possession has been con sidered as vacant disposable land under the 15 years lease scheme. It is emphasised that such eligible cultivator s shall not be disturbed."
If anything, this telegram actually goes against the petitioner because vide this telegram Government have stopped such area being included for allotment under the 15 years Lease Scheme as is in authorised possession of eligible cultivators. In this case it is the respondent Sohan Lal who was the authorised allottee of the land and this land could not therefore be given to Jalal petitioner under 15 years Lease Scheme.
(g) The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on some statement of learned Member, Board of Revenue dated 16‑5‑1971, appearing in the press.
In matters of Government policy and decisions statements appearing in the cress cannot form basis of decisions without their being supported by the written orders issued on behalf of the Government.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has also stated that the land in dispute lies within 5 miles limit from Nankana Municipal Committee.
According to the statement of the Colony Head Clerk and the comments received from the Deputy Commissioner the land in dispute is not within 5 miles limit of Nankana Municipal Committee.
6. It would thus be seen that according to none of the grounds adduced by the petitioner and his learned counsel, the petitioner can be allowed to retain this land under the 15 years Lease Scheme and the allotment in favour of Sohan Lai Lambardar under Livestock Breeding Scheme cancelled. It may in this connection be pointed out that the Scheme of allotment of 121 acres of State land to Lambardars under Pedigree Livestock Breeding Scheme, goes as far back as 1960 and recently Government have made this Scheme exclusive for Lambardars only. On comparative merits as well the respondent Lambardar has a more superior claim for the allotment of land in dispute than petitioner Jalal.
In view of all the above reasons and circumstances I do not see any justifiable ground for interfering with the orders of the lower Courts. The revision petition of Jalal is therefore, rejected. Orders may be issued and parties be informed accordingly.
Petition rejected.