GHULAM MURTAZA SALEEM Versus MEMBER (COLONIES), BOARD OF REVENUE

ORDER

1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J .‑‑Cancellation of petitioner's allotment of Government land, by virtue of a scheme made under the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912, was challenged before the High Court in writ petition which having been dismissed leave to appeal has now been sought.

2. The learned Judge while dismissing the writ petition observed as follows:‑

3. "The learned counsel for the petitioner has attacked the notice and the subsequent resumption on the ground that the Collector has failed to exercise his independent judgment as he was merely following the direction of the Board of Revenue. I am afraid there is no force in this argument because the finding of the Collector to the effect that the petitioner has failed to instal a tube-well or cultivate the land and to maintain his residence over the land is not denied even by the petitioner. The breach of conditions as found by the Collector is, therefore, obvious. The learned Counsel, however, argues that the petitioner cannot be held responsible for the breach of these conditions for the reason that it was for the T : D . A . to conduct a test boring of the land and since no test boring has been done no tube-well could be installed and in the absence of a tube-well there could be no cultivation and in the absence of cultivation there could be no residence of the lessee on the land. The learned counsel states that in 1966 Lahore High Court on a similar ground had held an order of resumption illegal.

4. It is true that in 1966 the Lahore High Court had given the judgment in favour of the lessee for the reason that the T.D.A. had failed to conduct the test boring but the facts of the present case are such that the petitioner does not deserve a similar indulgence. The possession of the land had been with the petitioner from 1953. The petitioner himself is living in England and during these 28 years he had not cultivated any portion of, his land., The reason stated by the petitioner for his failure is that the T . D . A . had failed to conduct the test boring even though the petitioner had deposited a fee of Rs.100. Considering the neglect on the part of the petitioner for the last 28 years this reason is a little overstated and no reasonable man can treat this as anything more than a hollow excuse. The result is that neither the petitioner is drawing any benefits out of this land himself nor is he permitting a more diligent peasant to do so. The land is lying barren and the petitioner is living in England yet he insists on holding on to this land merely on the ground that he had paid Rs.100 to the T.D.A. in 1953 to have a test boring on his land. This amounts to pressing the story of horse shoe nail a little too far and I believe that there was every justification on the part of the Collector to order the resumption of this land".

5. In the face of the elaborate reasoning dealing with the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the High Court and also with regard to the conduct of the petitioner, we asked the learned counsel whether it was a fit case for exercise of discretionary writ jurisdiction by the High Court or for that matter the exercise of discretion by this Court to grant leave to appeal in a case like the present one. But he remained unable to give any satisfactory reply.

6. Finding no force in this petition, we dismiss the same and refuse to grant leave to appeal.

7. M.I./G‑121/S Petition dismissed.