AMIR vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB and 2 others
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a writ petition by the High Court, which arose from the refusal of the authorities to grant proprietary rights to the petitioner over State land. The petitioner was allotted the land in 1971 under the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912, pursuant to a 15-year lease scheme. In 1979, the petitioner applied for proprietary rights, but the Collector rejected the application on the basis that the land was reserved for refugees from Jammu and Kashmir. After exhausting appellate remedies before the Board of Revenue and the High Court, the petitioner sought leave to appeal before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court examined the relevant notification scheme and the petitioner's arguments regarding the applicability of the reservation condition. Ultimately, the petitioner conceded that the condition regarding the reservation of land was validly applicable to the grant of proprietary rights and that such rights could not be granted under the scheme governing the 1971 allotment. Consequently, the Court found no justification for granting leave to appeal and dismissed the petition.
- Can proprietary rights be granted on State land if the land is reserved for a specific class of persons under the governing scheme?
- Does a condition regarding the reservation of land for refugees apply to the grant of proprietary rights for land allotted under a 15-year lease scheme?
- Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought, against the dismissal by the High Court, of a Writ Petition which had arisen out of the refusal by the respondents to grant proprietary rights to the petitioner on State land.
2. As stated by the learned counsel the land in dispute was allotted to the petitioner in July 1971 under the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 in pursuance of the then operative 15 years' lease scheme. The petitioner, it is further stated, applied for proprietary rights in 1979 and the Field Staff supported him. But the learned counsel admitted, the Collector rejected the application on the ground that the land in dispute had been reserved for refugees from Jammu and Kashmir.
3. The petitioner's appeal and revision up to Board of Revenue having failed, his writ petition was also dismissed. Leave to appeal, therefore, has now been sought.
4. ' Learned counsel has read para. 2(ii) of the Notification (Scheme) under which the grant of proprietary rights has been claimed--Punjab Statutes (PLD 1979 (Volume 6) 84). He has contended that although the ground mentioned in the impugned order for refusing proprietary rights to the petitioner is mentioned in the said scheme; but, he further stated the required condition has not been satisfied; because when the allotment was made to the petitioner this condition was not then applicable. After some arguments however, the learned counsel conceded that the condition in question is relatable to the grant of proprietary rights and that the same could not be granted to the petitioner under the Scheme by virtue of which the allotment was made to him in 1971. That being so no justification has been made out for grant of leave to appeal. The same, therefore, is refused.