HAMAD ALI vs THE PROVINCE OF PUNJAB And Other
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a civil suit regarding the allocation of State land under the Bara Reclamation Scheme. The petitioner, having fulfilled the conditions for proprietary rights in half of the 198 Kanals of land granted to him, sought the Northern half. The Collector, exercising the Government's right to select the moiety for transfer, allocated the Southern half instead. The petitioner challenged this allocation through a civil suit, which was initially decreed but subsequently dismissed by the Additional District Judge, a decision upheld by the High Court in revision. The core legal question was whether the petitioner had a vested right to choose the specific portion of land to be transferred. The Supreme Court held that the terms of the grant explicitly reserved the choice of the moiety to the Government. As the petitioner failed to prove any binding agreement granting him the Northern portion, and because the Reclamation Department lacked the authority to make such a choice, the Court affirmed the dismissal of the suit, noting the petitioner could separately approach competent authorities regarding the purchase of the remaining Government share.
- Does a grantee of State land under the Bara Reclamation Scheme have an inherent right to choose which specific portion of the land is transferred to them?
- Does the Reclamation Department possess the authority to make binding choices on behalf of the Government regarding the allocation of land moieties?
- Is the Government entitled to select the specific moiety of land to be transferred to a tenant under the terms of a State land grant?
ORDER
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.---The petitioner had obtained about 198 Kanals of State land under Bara Reclamation Scheme. On compliance with the terms of the grant, he became entitled to receive proprietary rights in half of the land. He asked for the Northern half of the land for himself. His claim was rejected by the Collector who elected to transfer the Southern half to him. He filed a civil suit.
The trial Court decreed the suit but in appeal it was dismissed by the Additional District Judge. He filed a revision petition in the High Court but it failed. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2. Under the terms of the grant the Government had the choice to pick up the moiety which it would keep and that it would transfer to the tenant. The petitioner was unable to show that the Collector who exercised the option on behalf of the Government had at any time agreed to give the Northen portion to him. The documents upon which he relies as well as the statements of the witnesses which he produced in support of his case merely refer to certain recommendations made by the Reclamation Department which, of course, was not empowered to make the choice on behalf of the Government. The Additional District Judge was therefore right in dismissing the suit.
3. The petitioner states that under the instructions of the Board of Revenue he could be permitted to purchase even the Government's share also. If that is so, he may, if so advised, approach the competent authority in this regard. With these observations this petition is dismissed.