MANZOOR OADIR Versus RAJAB ALI
ORDER
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑ ‑This is a petition for Special Leave to Appeal from the judgment dated 30‑8‑1992 of the Lahore High Court, whereby it declined to interfere in the Constitutional jurisdiction with the order of the Board of Revenue.
2. The petitioners are the sons and widow of one Rajab Ali son of Muhammad Khan. In 1956, Rajab Ali was allotted some State land under the Grow More Food Scheme. His allotment was cancelled in 1960. It does not appear that Rajab Ali or his legal representatives agitated against the cancellation of their lease in the higher revenue hierarchy. The land thus becoming available on the cancellation of Rajab Ali's lease was included in the Schedule of the land to be given on lease for temporary cultivation. In 1973, the land was given to respondent No. 1 for temporary cultivation. Subsequently, disputes arose between the petitioners and respondent No. 1 with regard to the person who was entitled to obtain proprietary rights in the land. After some litigation before the Collector and the Commissioner the Board of Revenue gave its decision in favour of respondent No. 1. The petitioners filed a Constitution petition in the High Court to challenge the legality of the order of the Board of Revenue. It was dismissed. The petitioners seek leave to appeal from this Court.
3. The claims of the petitioners and respondent No. 1 were considered by the High Court which then proceeded to uphold the order of the Board of Revenue with the following observations:
From the combined reading of the three orders of the revenue authorities it appears that the disputed land, which formed part of the tenancy of the predecessor of the petitioners under the Grow More Food Scheme was resumed by the Government some time during 1960 and including it in the schedule for temporary cultivation, allotted the same to respondent No. 1 as a lessee. No doubt, the land was resumed without notice to the predecessor of the petitioners and the order of resumption suffered from this illegality, but the petitioners cannot be allowed to, take advantage of it because after the resumption it was allotted to respondent No. 1 as far back as 1973 under the temporary cultivation scheme and since then he has been in its possession till 1989 after the intermittent extension of his lease period. Meanwhile, a scheme for the conferment of proprietary lights on the occupants of State land under the temporary cultivation scheme came into force and he became a claimant therefore. The Collector did not take notice of his possession of the land and his entitlement under the subsequent scheme and, suppressing this fact, proceeded to confer proprietary rights on the petitioners whose predecessor had forfeited them after abandoning the land more than two decades before. Neither he nor his successors made any protest by way of appeal or through any other legal process against the resumption of land and its allotment to respondent No. 1 and his taking possession in 1973. They acquiesced and tacitly conceded the new situation and it was too late for them to agitate a settled matter after such a long time before the Collector in 1988. There was no substance in the contention that petitioners' predecessor had made an application for the conferment of proprietary rights of the disputed land in 1967. It was only a ruse."
The learned counsel for the petitioners was unable to offer any satisfactory explanation why the petitioners kept silent for 13 years after the resumption of Rajab Ali's allotment and then for another 15 years while the land stood allotted to respondent No. 1. Apparently, after the cancellation of Rajqb Ali's allotment he and later the petitioners lost interest therein. In the circumstances, we do not find any fault with the view taken by the High Court. Leave is refused.
A.A./M‑2008/S Leave refused.