MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN vs THE PROVINCE OF PUNJAB and others
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that dismissed the petitioner's writ petition regarding the refusal of proprietary rights over State land. The petitioner, an allottee, contended that he had satisfied the necessary conditions for the grant of proprietary rights and sought a mandatory injunction against the respondents. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to proprietary rights under the notification dated 3-9-1979, given that the land in question had been reserved for Jammu and Kashmir Refugees under a permanent scheme. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's findings, noting that the notification specifically excluded lands reserved for permanent schemes from the grant of proprietary rights. Finding no infirmity in the High Court's factual determination that the land was indeed reserved for such a scheme, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal. The key principle affirmed is that where land is reserved for a permanent scheme, it falls outside the scope of notifications granting proprietary rights to general allottees.
- Does a notification granting proprietary rights to allottees of State land apply to land reserved for permanent schemes?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding land reservation status?
- Are lands reserved for Jammu and Kashmir Refugees considered part of a permanent scheme for the purpose of excluding them from proprietary rights grants?
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--The petitioner, an allottee of State land, has called in question the dismissal by the High Court of his Writ Petition, against the refusal by the respondents' side for grant him proprietary rights.
2. ' Learned counsel has contended that the petitioner had satisfied the conditions for the grant of proprietary rights. Therefore, the High Court should have allowed the writ petition with the grant of mandatory injunction to the respondents, in this behalf. The relevant part of the impugned judgment relating to the point raised by the learned counsel reads as follows:-- "According to the record produced by the Patwari, it is true that the petitioner was cultivating this land since Rabi 1976 but the record also shows that this land was reserved for Jammu and Kashmir Refugees in 1978. Para. 2(ii) of the notification of 3-9-1979, under which the petitioner claims the grant of proprietary rights specifically excludes such lands which have been reserved for grants under permanent schemes. It is not denied that the Jammu and Kashmir Refugees Scheme is a permanent scheme. It is clear, therefore, that under this notification, the petitioner was not entitled to ihe grant of proprietary rights."
3. ' Learned counsel has, however, tried to show that the finding to the effect that the land in question had been reserved under the permanent scheme for settlement of Jammu and Kashmir Refugees, is not correct.
4. After going through the relevant record relied upon by the learned counsel, we have not been able to find any justification for interference with the findings of fact against the petitioner. There is no infirmity noticeable by this Court, in the impugned judgment. Leave to appeal, therefore, is refused.