BASHIR AHMAD Versus MEMBER (COLONIES), BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB, LAHORE

Civil Petition No, 560-L of 1992, decided on 29th March, 1993.

Authored by Abdul Shakurul Salam. Result: Leave granted.

Summary

The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of his writ petition by the Lahore High Court, which had upheld the refusal of the Revenue Authority to grant him proprietary rights over State land. The petitioner held land under three different schemes, totaling 103 Kanals and 1 Marla. The Revenue Authority denied his application for proprietary rights under the Temporary Cultivation Scheme, citing a policy that a person could obtain only one grant. The petitioner contended that clauses 3 and 4 of the Statement of Terms and Conditions for the purchase of proprietary rights should be read together, arguing that they allow a lessee to acquire proprietary rights up to the limit of a subsistence holding, rather than prohibiting all grants if the total area exceeds that limit. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, finding merit in the argument that the petitioner might be entitled to rights up to the subsistence holding limit, and ordered status quo regarding the lease to the extent of 100 Kanals.

Questions settled in this judgment

Can a lessee holding State land under multiple schemes be granted proprietary rights up to the limit of a subsistence holding?
Does the ownership of land exceeding a subsistence holding automatically disqualify a lessee from obtaining any proprietary rights under the Temporary Cultivation Scheme?

proprietary rightsstate landtemporary cultivation schemesubsistence holdingleaserevenue authorityleave to appeal

ORDER

ABDUL SHAKURUL SALAM, J.---Petitioner seeks leave to appeal against an order of a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Writ Petition No, 1598 of 1983 dated 26-4-1992.

1.Relevant facts are that the petitioner was granted State land on lease in the following Schemes in Chak No, 654/GB, Tehsil Jaranwala:--

S. No,Name of Scheme Area

K - M

1. 15-Year Scheme 30 - 18

2.Grow More Scheme 44 - 18

3.Temporary Cultivation

Scheme18 - 05

103 -

The petitioner applied for conferment of proprietary rights in terms of the Temporary Cultivation Scheme as contained in Notification dated 3-9-1979. This was disallowed by the Revenue Authority and the Writ Petition was dismissed on the ground that a person can obtain only one grant. 2. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the eligibility and ineligibility of any lessee holding State lands have been defined in the Statement of Terms and Conditions for the purchase of proprietary rights vide clauses 3 and 4, which reads as follows:--

"3. Eligibility.--Any lessee holding State land on temporary cultivation lease who is either landless or owner of less than a subsistence holding and has been in continuous cultivating possession of the leased land since before Kharif 1977 may be eligible for the purchase of proprietary rights in such land-in the case of lessee who is landless up to a subsistence holding; and in the case of a lessee who is owner of less than a subsistence holding, up to that area by which he falls short of a subsistence holding.

4. Ineligibility.--(a) Any lessee who is owner of a subsistence holding or does not cultivate the land himself shall not be eligible for the purchase of proprietary rights in the leased land and shall surrender it peaceably to the Collector immediately on the expiry/termination of his lease.

(b)A lessee (including members of his family) can have only one grant or share or interest therein either under these conditions or under any other scheme issued by the Government." Learned counsel submits that if the two clauses Nos. (3) and (4) are read together, the purpose is obvious that a lessee can have proprietary rights up to the subsistence holding. The leases in favour of the petitioner total 103 Kanals 1 Marla, that is to say 3 Kanal 1 Marla more than a substance holding. Learned counsel submits that the refusal to, grant proprietary right in respect of the entire temporary Cultivation Scheme to the extent of 18 Kanals 5 Marlas is contrary to the terms of the two clauses quoted above. At the maximum, he could be denied relief to the extent of 3 Kanals 4 Marlas 3. To consider the contention leave to appeal is granted. Status quo in respect of the lease in favour of the petitioner to the extent of 100 Kanals, subsisting holding.

Judges on this bench

Abdul Shakurul Salam771 judgments
Sajjad Ali Shah1,895 judgments