MST. BUSHRA BANG SHIRANI Versus MUHAMMAD HASSAN

An agricultural piece of land measuring 100 Kanals 5 Marlas was allotted as a Lambardari grant to the petitioner on 29‑6‑1971 by the learned District Collector, Faisalabad. The petitioner accepted the terms and conditions of the allotment of the land to him and consequently order under section 10(3) of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 was issued by the District Collector, Faisalabad on 13‑7‑1972. An application was moved by the petitioner for grant of proprietary rights of the land to him in the year 1979. This application was rejected by the learned District Collector on the ground that there was no law under which such rights could be given to the petitioner, vide order dated‑4‑8‑1980. In consequence an order dated 9‑1‑1989 was passed by the Colony Assistant/Collector whereby the land was resumed. However, the said order was recalled on 14‑1‑1989 on the representation of the petitioner, accordingly the allotment was restored to him. Another order was passed by the Colony Assistant exercising the power of Collector that the land in dispute shall be included in the auction list for its auction on 19‑11‑1989. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner went in appeal before the learned Commissioner, Faisalabad Division, Faisalabad, who on 19‑8‑1990 held that the land was not found in regular possession of the petitioner. This order was upheld by the learned Member (Judicial), Board of Revenue, Punjab on 17‑i1‑1990.

2. Two contentions have been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Firstly, he submits that the petitioner is admittedly the allottee in possession of the land in question and that he is still cultivating it with his own hands. Secondly, he adds that under the present policy of the Provincial Government, the petitioner is entitled to the allotment of 12‑1/2 acres of land as of rights. In support of the plea learned counsel has referred to Khasra Girdawari and the Jamabandi, Annexures 'B' and 'C.

3. Learned Additional Advocate‑General has opposed the petition on the ground that the petitioner was not found entitled for gram of proprietary rights by the Colony Assistant and the learned Commissioner and that there was nothing wrong with those orders.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length and have read the record carefully. The position which emerges from the record is that the land in question was allotted to the petitioner as a Lambardar as back as 29‑6‑1971 by the learned District Collector. The impugned orders demonstrate beyond doubt that the petitioner is in the cultivating possession of the land in question since long. Learned counsel maintains that the petitioner is entitled to the allotment of the land in question as a matter of right. He further mentions that the petitioner has made huge investment of money and labour for bringing the land under plough. Learned counsel has heavily relied upon Annexure 'O' a policy letter issued by the Government over the controversy, This letter shows that Lambardars of the whole province shall be given 12‑1/2 acres of land out of the State land. The objection of the learned Law Officer is that the policy letter on the subject was issued by the Government in the year 1990 and as such it would not cover the case of the petitioner in any manner. It is evident from the aforesaid letter that all the Lambardars shall be given 12‑1/2 acres of land. Even otherwise there is absolutely nothing on record to show that the petitioner violated any terms and conditions of his allotment of the land. The impugned orders are unjust on the face of record. Learned Law Officer failed to make out a case for upholding the orders under challenge. The land in question is admittedly in the allotment and physical possession of the petitioner and as such it shall be deemed to have been given to him according to the policy letter issued by the Government, Annexure 'O'. In this view of the matter, I proceed to set aside the impugned orders passed by the respondents. Accordingly the petition succeeds and is allowed with no order as to costs.

H.B.T./W‑15/L Petition allowed.