MIR DAD Versus MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE (COLONIES)

This is a Constitutional petition filed by Mir Dad and others, petitioners, Nos. 1 to 6, calling in question the order of the Assistant Commissioner/ Collector, Shorkot, respondent No. 1, dated 11‑8‑1979, that of the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Sargodha, respondent No. 4, dated 29‑3‑1980 and that of the Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue, respondent No.5, dated 7‑10‑1980.

2. The case in brief is that on 11‑8‑1979, the Assistant Commissioner/ Collector, Shorkot, respondent No.l, leased out lot No.2 to Muhammad Aslam, respondent No. 6 and lot No. 4 to Bahadur, respondent 7, under the Temporary Cultivation Scheme for five years ending Rabi 1983. The leases were given pursuant to the auctions held on 25‑4‑1979, which had been notified in the Urdu 'Nawa‑e‑Waqt' newspaper dated 28‑3‑1979. Mir Dad and others, petitioners Nos . 1 to 6, challenged the said two leases on the ground that they were sub‑tenants of Faiz Rahim and Muhammad Akram who previously held the land and from whom the same had reverted to the Government. Mir Dad and others, petitioners Nos. 1 to 5, preferred an appeal in respect of lot No.2 and Khuda Bakhsh, petitioner No.6, preferred an appeal in respect of lot No.4 before the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Sargodha, respondent No.4. Both the said appeals were dismissed on 29‑3‑1980. The petitioners then preferred two separate revision petitions before the Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue, Punjab. Both revisions were dismissed by the said Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue, on 7‑10‑1980. Mir Dad and others, petitioners Nos. 1 to 6, then preferred the present constitutional petition challenging the orders of the lower revenue authorities, which petition is now before me for disposal.

3. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners, the two allottees and the State and have perused the record. It appears that after the expiry of the two leases in Rabi, 1983, lot No. 4 was given on lease to Khuda Bakhsh, petitioner No.6, on 12‑11‑1983. He is holding the said land since. This order was not challenged by Bahadur, respondent No.7. This petition qua Khuda Bakhsh, petitioner No.6, has now become infructuous.

4. As regards lot No.2, it appears that even when the said lot was auctioned in favour of Muhammad Aslam, respondent No. 6, in 1979 and leased out to him he was not able to secure the possession of Killas Nos. 16 to 25 of the land which remained with Mir Dad and others, petitioners Nos. 1 to 5. It seems that Muhammad Aslam, respondent No.6, is in possession of Killa Nos. 17 to 24 of Square No.4 and Mir Dad and others, petitioners Nos. 1 to 5, are in possession of Killas Nos. 16 and 25 of Square No. 4 from 1979 till date and due to the stay order issued in this case by the High Court the Assistant Commissioner/ Collector, Shorkot, respondent No. 1 was not in a position to deal with the further allotment/lease of the said lot No.2. The three orders which the petitioners now impugned relate to the auction held on 25‑4‑1979 under which the land was leased for five years upto Rabi, 1983. Whether they are right or wrong is of no consequence, for the Assistant Commissioner/ Collector, Shorkot, would now decide the case according to law and the departmental instructions, as they now stand. I would, therefore, now direct the Assistant Commissioner/ Collector, Shorkot, to pass appropriate orders regarding No.2, since the earlier lease granted in favour of Muhammad Aslam, respondent No.6, expired in Rabi, 1983, and there are no further orders since.

5. This writ petition stands disposed of, subject to observations given above.

6. There shall be no orders as to costs

H. B. T./M‑780/L Order accordingly