PEHLWAN Versus MEMBER (COLONIES), BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB
This is an appeal by leave directed against the order of the Lahore High Court dismissing the appellants' constitutional petition regarding the refusal of proprietary rights over state land. The core legal question concerns whether the appellants established a valid allotment and lawful occupation of the land in question under the Ejected Tenants Scheme to entitle them to proprietary rights. The Supreme Court held that the original register of allotment demonstrated that the land was never allotted to the appellants, and their long-term occupation and payment of land revenue did not convert unauthorized possession into a lawful title. The appeal was consequently dismissed with costs, affirming that mere occupation and payment of dues without a subsisting allotment confer no ownership rights.
- Does long-term occupation of state land and payment of land revenue confer proprietary rights in the absence of a valid allotment?
- Can a claim for ownership rights be sustained solely on the basis of entries in a Roznamcha Waqiati that fail to show an actual allotment?
ALI HUSSAIN QAZILBASH, J.- -This is an appeal by leave against the order of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, dated 16th December, 1981, whereby the constitutional petition of the appellants was dismissed.
2. The facts are that Pehlwan appellant and three others are occupants of Killas No.13 to 20 of Square No.3 in Chak No.514/G. B. , Tehsil Samundri, District Faisalabad, since 26-6-1957 and it is alleged that the same was allotted to them under the Ejected Tenants Scheme by the Collector, Faisalabad, on 12-6-1957, vide Roznamcha Waqiati No.523. The area occupied is 69 kanals 5 marlas. It is also alleged that the appellants have been paying regularly the revenue charges and other dues of the property since its alleged allotment. It so happened that somewhere in 1979 the appellants submitted an application to the Collector for grant of proprietary rights over the suit land but the same was rejected on 16-4-1979. The appeal and the revision petition of the appellants were dismissed by the Commissioner, Sargodha Division, and Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab, on 18-11-1979 and 3-4-1980, respectively. Ultimately the appellants filed a writ petition in the High Court which was also dismissed on 16-12-1981.
3. Leave was granted in this case to consider the propriety of the impugned orders.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. The Revenue authorities upto the level of the Member, Board of Revenue, have turned down the claim of the appellants for the grant of proprietary rights in respect of the suit land. The High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction also non-suited the appellants by observing:
"The original register of allotment has been summoned. It is evident that the petitioner was never allotted the land in question. There is no doubt that he has been paying the lagans of the land and even the challans had been approved by the revenue authorities for payment of lagan but the fact remains that his occupation of the land was unauthorized throughout. The petitioners, therefore, has no right in the land. The writ petition is dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs."
We have considered the case of the appellants and we find that the same lacks merits. It is true that the appellants have been in occupation of the land in question for quite a long time and have been paying its land revenue but it is equally true that there is not an iota of evidence to show that they were so occupying it under some authority. The Roznamcha Waqiati, on which the appellants have based their case, does not at all indicate that the land was allotted to the appellants and this factual position could not be controverted by the learned counsel for the appellants before us.
4. The view, therefore, we have formed is that the appellants have no right, whatsoever, to claim any ownership rights. The appeal thus fails and is dismissed with costs.
S.Q./P-23/S Appeal dismissed