ZAHOOR HUSSAIN And Others vs ABDUL HAMID And Other
This civil petition for leave to appeal arose from a High Court writ petition challenging the partition of an occupancy tenancy during consolidation proceedings, the allotment of evacuee share to a Jammu & Kashmir refugee in 1966, and its subsequent sale to Respondent No. 1. The petitioners, who purchased land from occupancy tenants after those vendors acquired proprietary rights over their partitioned share, asserted rights over the remaining land under Section 114 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 and a Policy Letter dated 31-3-1977. The Supreme Court held that since the petitioners' predecessors never challenged the consolidation partition, the allocation to evacuee share, or the 1966 allotment before competent forums prior to 1-7-1974, those orders had attained finality and could not be collaterally attacked. Furthermore, the petitioners could not claim greater rights than what their vendors had actually acquired and transferred to them. Finding no legal merit or factual foundation for the claim, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal.
- Whether an allotment order that has attained finality without being challenged in appeal or revision can be challenged through collateral proceedings?
- Can a purchaser of land from former occupancy tenants claim rights over land beyond what was actually acquired by and vested in their vendors?
- Whether policy instructions issued subsequently can retrospectively take away rights accrued in favour of valid allottees of land?
- Section 114, Punjab Tenancy Act 1887
ORDER
ABDUL SHAKURUL SALAM, J: --Petitioners' predecessors-in---interest were occupancy tenants of land measuring 214 Kanals 14 Marlas owned by non-Muslim evacuee owners. They were paying 2/5th share of the produce to the evacuee owners and retaining 3/5th share of the produce with them as occupancy tenants. During the consolidation proceedings, the Khata in question was divided proportionately. The land in dispute measuring 85 Kanals 8 Marlas fell in the share of the evacuees and put in the Khata of the Central Government. Later on, it was allotted to one Muhammad Din as a Jammu and Kashmir refugee on .16-3-1966 who sold it in favour of respondent No.1. The predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners (occupancy tenants) later on acquired the proprietary rights in respect of the land falling to their share. They sold the same to the present petitioners. The petitioners filed writ petition No.100-R of 1984 contending that the orders of the Consolidation Authorities dividing the Khata followed by all subsequent orders passed by the Revenue Officers as well as the allotment of the land made in favour of Muhammad Din, predecessor-in-interest of respondent No.1, were illegal and the petitioners were entitled to purchase the land in dispute. 1t was observed by the learned Single Judge that "the petitioners could not establish that they were occupancy tenants over the disputed land or that they had purchased occupancy rights in respect of the disputed land---.It appears that petitioners had purchased land from Ghulam Muhammad and others who were occupancy tenants after they had acquired proprietary rights as such they cannot lay claim to the land in dispute on the plea which is factually incorrect". It was further observed that "the land in dispute was allotted to Muhammad Din the predecessor-in-interest of respondent No.1 on 16-3-1966. This order was not assailed in appeal or revision before 1-7-1974 as such it had attained finality. The petitioners, therefore, cannot assail the validity of the same through collateral proceedings. The land in dispute having been validly allotted and disposed of before the issuance of letter dated 31-3-1977 relied upon by the petitioners was not available for disposal in terms of the instructions contained in the aforesaid letter, nor the letter in question can take away rights accrued in favour of the allottees retrospectively". The petition was accordingly, dismissed vide order dated 1-4-1977.
2. Petitioners seek leave to appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that under section-114 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 and Policy Letter dated 31-3-1977 mentioned above, the predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners were entitled to the entire occupancy tenancy.
4. Not only the predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners never challenged the partition of the proportionate shares by the Consolidation Authorities before any appropriate forum nor ever they challenged the allocation of the land to the evacuees' share and its subsequent allotment to the predecessors-in-interest of the respondent on 16-3-1966, nor had they acquired proprietary rights in the land in dispute, how can then the petitioners claim more than what they had purchased from their vendors which had never been asked for nor vested in them?
5. In view of the above, there is no merit, in this petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed.