NOOR MUHAMMAD Versus MUHAMMAD GULZAR

ORDER

MANZOOR HUSSAIN SIAL, J. ‑‑Leave to appeal is sought by the petitioner against the order dated 26‑6‑1994 of the Lahore High Court (Multan Bench), whereby Writ Petition No. 1518 of 1994 filed by him was dismissed.

2. The dispute in this case relates to agricultural land, measuring 76 Kanals, 15 Marlas situated in Chak No.105/10‑R, Tehsil and District Khanewal. In the year 1979 this parcel of land was initially leased out to Muhammad Gulzar respondent under five years lease scheme. He applied for the grant of proprietary rights in respect thereto, but his request was declined. He preferred appeal against the rejection of his claim for obtaining proprietary rights before the Commissioner, Multan, but the same too was dismissed vide 15‑3‑1981. It appears that he did not further challenge the order refusing to grant him the proprietary rights in the land and that order attained finality. It further appears that in the meantime Noor Muhammad petitioner obtained the aforesaid land on lease vide order dated 16‑10‑1979 passed by the Collector, Khanewal. This order was challenged by Muhammad Gulzar respondent in appeal, which was allowed on 3‑12‑1979 consequently the lease ensuring for the benefit of the petitioner was cancelled, and the land was leased out to Muhammad Gulzar respondent till Rabi 1984. The perusal of the orders on the file further reveals that the land in dispute was leased out through auction under Temporary Allotment Scheme on 15‑5‑1989. Simultaneously, the Collector also extended the lease vide his order dated 29‑5‑1989 in favour of Muhammad Gulzar, up to Rabi 1991.

3. Noor Muhammad petitioner having learnt about the extension of lease vide order dated 29‑5‑1989, in favour of Muhammad Gulzar respondent, filed an appeal, which was dismissed vide order dated 28‑I1‑1989. Thereafter, he filed revision petition against the aforesaid order of the Commissioner Multan, which was accepted vide order dated 4‑4‑1993, passed by the Member, Board of Revenue, Muhammad Gulzar respondent feeling dissatisfied with the aforesaid order moved a review application, which was accepted vide order dated 19‑12‑1993 by the same Member, Board of Revenue, and the case was remanded to the Commissioner, Multan Division, for fresh decision.

4. Aggrieved by the aforementioned order dated 19‑12‑1993, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 1518 of 1994 which was dismissed on 26‑6‑1994 by the Lahore High Court vide impugned order referred to above.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that Muhammad Gulzar respondent was minor on the date of the allotment of the land in question, as such he was not competent to obtain the land on lease. It was also stated that the Collector Khanewal, vide order dated '10‑11‑1980, refused to confer the proprietary rights in the land upon him and his appeal having failed before the Commissioner, Multan, on 15‑3‑1981, which orders were not challenged by way of appeal or revision before the Revenue Officers in that hierarchy, the same attained finality against him. ,The land was included in the schedule of auction and was leased out on 15‑5‑1989 under Temporary Allotment Scheme; the respondent could lay no valid claim for allotment thereof. It was lastly contended that the learned Member, Board of Revenue reviewed his own order in excess of the jurisdiction not vested in him, and this aspect of the case was not appreciated in its correct perspective by the learned Judge in Chambers.

6: Leave to appeal granted to consider the above‑noted contentions raised by the learned counsel for petitioner. Status quo meanwhile.

A.A./N‑464/S Leave granted.