MUHAMMAD ASLAM vs MUHAMMAD ISMAIL and others
This petition for leave to appeal was filed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's writ petition concerning land designated under a Chowkidari grant. An inquiry conducted by the Assistant Commissioner, Chiniot, established that the petitioner was in illegal possession of the disputed land. The petitioner's subsequent appeals and revisions before the Additional Commissioner (Revenue) and the Board of Revenue, Punjab were dismissed, with directions issued to restore possession to the entitled Mueens pursuant to Sections 32 and 34 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act 1912. The High Court declined to grant constitutional relief on the ground that the relevant Khasra Girdawari explicitly reflected the petitioner as an illegal occupant. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's view, holding that a person identified as an illegal occupant in revenue records without any proof of a lawful claim is disentitled from claiming discretionary or equitable relief. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed.
- Is an illegal occupant of government land entitled to seek discretionary constitutional relief?
- Can revenue record entries such as Khasra Girdawari showing unauthorized possession disentitle a petitioner from equitable relief?
- Whether possession of land under a Chowkidari grant can be restored to Mueens under Sections 32 and 34 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act 1912?
- Section 32, Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act 1912
- Section 34, Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act 1912
' SH. IJAZ NISAR, J.---Leave is sought against the order dated 7-10-1996 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dismissing the writ petition of Muhammad Aslam petitioner.
2. The relevant facts are that an application was filed before A.C. Chiniot alleging that the land measuring 36 Kanals forming subject of Chowkidari grant was in illegal possession of the petitioner. An inquiry was held and the allegations were found to be correct. The A.C. Chiniot directed that the crop sown in the land in question be given on Superdari to somebody and if no one was prepared to take the same the Girdawar, should take over it. The petitioner challenged the said order before the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), which was dismissed with the direction that if the petitioner failed to give share to the Mueens the same may be distributed in accordance with law and that the possession of land be also restored to the Mueens by resorting to section 32/34 of Colonization of the Government Act, 1912. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a revision in the Board of Revenue Punjab, which was dismissed. Dissatisfied with the aforesaid orders, he filed a writ petition in the High Court, which too was dismissed. Hence, this petition.
3. The High Court observed that since in the Khasra Girdawari the petitioner had been shown as an illegal occupant of the land in dispute, he was, therefore, not entitled to any relief in the equitable and discretionary jurisdiction of the Court.
4. It is contended that there has been a gross misreading of the revenue papers and that proper opportunity of hearing was not afforded to the petitioner to establish his claim.
5. It is clearly mentioned in the Khasra Girdawari relied upon by the petitioner that he was an illegal occupant of the land in question. As he had failed to show his legal claim on that piece of land, he was rightly not considered entitled to the discretionary relief. Finding no infirmity in the impugned order we dismiss the petition.
Cited by 4 cases
- Farrukh Shahzad vs Maqbool Hussain Awan 2024 LHC 1879, 2025 PLJ Lahore 184
- Rahim Dad vs Saeeda Khanum 2021 LHC 7661
- Rahim Dad vs Saeeda Khanum 2023 PLD Lahore 465
- Malik Ijaz Ahmad Khan Versus Federation of Pakistan 2025 MLD 1871