DIN MUHAMMAD vs MIRZA And Another
This matter originated from a petition seeking leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that dismissed a writ petition challenging the resumption of land allotted to the petitioner under the Ejected Tenants Scheme. The petitioner was initially allotted land in 1952, which was exchanged for the disputed land in 1961. The Collector subsequently resumed this land, citing its location within a ten-mile radius of a First Class Municipality, a decision upheld through various appellate and revisional forums, including the Board of Revenue and civil courts. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to relief based on subsequent government policy letters from 1970 and 1972, which expressed an intention to provide alternative accommodation to persons uprooted from land in exemption belts. The Supreme Court held that while the humanitarian aspect regarding the petitioner's displacement deserved consideration, such relief could only be granted by the Provincial Government authorities, not the Court. Finding no legal error in the High Court's dismissal, the Court dismissed the petition, leaving the petitioner to seek administrative redress.
- Can the Supreme Court grant relief based on government policy letters regarding alternative accommodation when no legal error exists in the lower court's order?
- Does the reduction of an exemption belt in a First Class Municipality create a justiciable right for an allottee to claim alternative land?
- Is a writ petition the appropriate forum to challenge the resumption of land by revenue authorities after the exhaustion of statutory remedies?
- Colonization of Government Lands Act 1912
ORDER
1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.--The petitioner was allotted some land under the Ejected Tenants Scheme, on 24-3-1952 in village Rakh Dherman in the District Sargodha which was exchanged by orders of the Government, dated 24-1-1961 for the area in dispute, which measures 65 Kanals 5 Marlas comprising Square No. 97, Killa Nos. 2, 3/1, 4/1, Square No. 99, Killa Nos. 9, 10, 11, 20, 21 and 22.
2. Sometimes in May 1967, the petitioner applied for grant of proprietary rights in the above area under the Ejected Tenants Scheme, dated 8-10-1960. However, the Collector, instead of transferring proprietary rights to the petitioner, resumed the area in question itself on the ground that it was situate within ten miles of the outer limits of the Sargodha Municipal Committee, a First Class Municipality. The petitioner's appeal to the Collector and the revision to the Board of Revenue against the said decision failed. He then approached the civil Court for redress. His suit was, however, dismissed, as also his appeal preferred before the District Judge. He then moved the Lahore High Court by a revision petition. However, when the revision petition came up for hearing, the petitioner, instead of pursuing it, surprisingly decided to withdraw it and moved a writ petition instead. Herein, he prayed for setting aside the order of the District Judge as well as the revenue authorities. The said writ petition was dismissed for a variety of reasons, which have force. This petition has now been filed seeking, leave to appeal in this Court.
3. Before us, the correctness of the decision of the High Court dismissing the writ petition has not seriously been challenged. The contention which was really stressed was that in the meanwhile the Government had issued two Policy Letters, in June, 1970 and December, 1972 manifesting its intention not to uproot persons from the land allotted to them under the provisions of Colonization of Government Lands Act in the exemption belt, by providing alternative accommodation to them.
4. The circumstance that the exemption belt had been reduced from 10 to 5 in the First Class Municipality was a further manifestation of this intention as the anomatly resulting from the existence of different standards under different schemes, which were working hardship on the tenants /allottees in different areas, was sought to be harmonized thereby. Hence, the petitioner should have, at least, been allowed alternative accommodation before he was uprooted from the land given to him as long ago as 24-1-1961.
5. This humanitarian aspect of the case, no doubt, deserves consideration. However, this cannot be done by us but only by the Provincial Government authorities. The petitioner may, if so advised, approach the authorities concerned for relief in the matter.
6. Since, however, no error exists in the order of the High Court impugned before us, this petition must fail and, subject to the above observations, stands dismissed.