GHULAM SARWAR and others vs MEMBER (COLONIES) and others
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a dispute over the allotment of a 'Mueen Ihata' (a plot reserved for village artisans/servants). The petitioners challenged a High Court judgment that upheld an order by the Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue, which had cancelled the allotment of the disputed Ihata to the petitioners' predecessor, Mst. Karamat Bibi, a landowner. The core legal question was whether a landowner was entitled to an Ihata specifically reserved for Mueens when other 'Abadkari Ihatas' (plots for landowners) were available for allotment. The Supreme Court held that the allotment to the landowner was improper because the disputed plot was reserved for Mueens, and alternative plots suitable for landowners were available at the time of the original allotment. The Court further noted that the petitioners' subsequent inability to secure an alternative plot was due to their own delay in pursuing litigation rather than any legal error by the authorities. The principle established is that administrative allotments must strictly adhere to the specific purpose for which land is reserved, and landowners cannot claim plots reserved for specific classes when other appropriate land is available.
- Is a landowner entitled to the allotment of an Ihata specifically reserved for Mueens when alternative plots for landowners are available?
- Can a petitioner claim relief for the unavailability of alternative plots if that unavailability resulted from the petitioner's own delay in litigation?
- Does the condonation of delay by an appellate authority in a revenue matter constitute a valid exercise of discretion if the appeal was also decided on merits?
' ZIA MAHMOOD MIRZA; J.---Petitioners seek leave to appeal against the judgment of Lahore High Court dated 224-1995 dismissing their Constitutional petition (W.P. No, 215/79).
2. Petitioners' mother Mst. Karamat Bibi was allotted a 'Mueen Ihata' by the Assistant Commissioner/Collector on 15-10-1970. Appeal filed by Taj Muhammad respondent was dismissed by Additionii Commissioner. His revision petition was however, accepted by the learned' Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue vide order dated 12-12-1978. Crli'e learned Member held "The Ratwari states that there are still eight Abadkari thatas available for allotment. A Mueen. Ihata, therefore, cannot be allotted to a landowner when Abadkari Ihatas are available". The Ihata in dispute was accordingly directed to be allotted to Taj Muhammad. It was, however, observed by the learned Member that Mst. Karamat Bibi should be given one of the available Abadkari sites.
3. Feeling aggrieved; Mst. Karamat Bibi approached the High Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction but with no better result as her writ petition has been dismissed vide the impugned judgment, in Para. 6 whereof, learned Judge in the High Court has held that the writ petitioner could not have been allotted the Hiatal in dispute which was meant for Mueens only more so when other Ihatas were available which could have been allotted to her.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. He has not denied that the petitioners' mother Mst. Karamat Bibi was a landowner while Taj Muhammad respondent Is a Mueen and that the Ihata in dispute was reserved for Mueens. He has also not denied that at the relevant time, '
Abadkari Ihatas' were available for allotment to the proprietors though he has made a grievance that no 'Abadlcari Ihata' is now available for allotment. In view of the factual position admitted by the learned counsel, the learned Member, Board of Revenue was right in holding that the Ihata in dispute could not have been allotted-to Mst. Karamat Bibi. As regards the petitioners' grievance that no ',Abadkari Ihata' is now available, they are to blame themselves as their mother instead of seeking the allotment of 'Abadkari Ihata'; in pursuance of the observation of the Member, Board of Revenue sought to agitate her claim for the allotment of Ihata in dispute by filing a Constitutional petition in the High Court which petition remained pending in the High Court for about 16 years and in the meantime 'Abadkari Ihata.s', it appears, had been allotted to other persons.
' Learned counsel also sought to contend that the learned Member, Board Of Revenue acted illegally in allowing the revision petition of the respondent without noticing that his appeal before the Additional Commissioner was barred by time. Petitioners do not appear to have raised/pressed this point as such either before the learned Member, Board of Revenue or in the High Court. Be that as it may, the learned Judge in the High Court has observed in the, impugned judgment that the delay in filing the appeal was condoned by the Additional Commissioner who had dismissed the appeal on merits. This observation/finding is borne out from the order of the Additional Commissioner.
5. Upshot of the above discussion is that we find no merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed.