ABDUL REHMAN and another vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER/COLLECTOR, TOBA
This petition for leave to appeal arises from an order of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioners' writ petition. The petitioners were originally granted a temporary lease of the disputed land for one crop in Rabi 1972, which was never extended. Despite this, the petitioners remained in unauthorised possession until 1983, when they applied for proprietary rights under specific notifications, while the land was granted to respondent No. 3 under the Gallantly Award Scheme. The core legal question was whether unauthorized occupants following the expiry of a temporary lease are entitled to claim proprietary rights and challenge subsequent allotments to third parties. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners' possession after 1972 was unauthorised and conferred no right to claim proprietary rights under the notifications, leaving them without locus standi to challenge the permanent grant to respondent No. 3. The petition was accordingly dismissed, laying down the principle that unauthorised post-lease possession does not create proprietary entitlements or legal standing to contest subsequent state land allotments.
- Whether a lessee whose lease expired can claim proprietary rights on the basis of continued unauthorised possession?
- Does an unauthorised occupant of state land possess the locus standi to challenge the grant of the same land to a third party under a permanent scheme?
ORDER
1. ' JAVID IQBAL, J.--This petition for leave is directed against order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 4th November, 1984 whereby writ petition of the petitioners was dismissed.
2. ' Birefly the facts are that the petitioners were granted lease of the disputed land for temoporary cultivation only for one crop i.e, Rabi 1972. It was not extended but the petitioners remained in possession of the said land unauthorisedly. Thereafter in 1983 taking advantage of the unauthorised possession they applied for the grant of proprietary rights under notifications issued in 1979 and 1983. But the land was granted to respondent No,3 by the Revenue authorities. The petitioners' case was that while their application for the grant of proprietary rights was pending the land had been illegally allotted to respondent No,3. Since their claim was rejected by the Revenue authorities, they challenged in the High Court the orders of grant of the said land to respondent No,3 under the Gallantly Award Scheme, but their writ petition was dismissed as stated above.
3. Hence the present petition.
4. ' Learned counsel for the petitioners attempted to argue before us that the petitioners were entitled to the grant of proprietary rights under the aforesaid notifications and while their application for the same was pending the disputed land should have not been granted to respondent No,3 without any notice to the petitioners.
5. This argument of the learned counsel has no merit because the petitioners' possession after the expiry of the lease, from 1972 to 1983, was unauthorised and therefore they could not claim the grant of proprietary rights under the aforesaid notifications on the basis of this nature of possession. The High Court therefore was correct to arrive at the conclusion that the lease did not subsist in favour of the petitioners since 1972 and therefore if the land was granted under a permanent scheme to respondent No,3, the petitioners had no locus standi to challenge the same.
6. Since this is the position no interference is called for. The petition is therefore dismissed.