MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.---According to the contents of this writ petition the petitioner is a permanent lamberdar of Chak No.497/EB, Tehsil Burewala, District Vehari and is allottee of 100 Kanals of land described in para. 1 of the writ petition as a lamberdari grant. Vide notification dated 13-7-1976 (Annexure "A") the Provincial Government issued instructions for the disposal of the lumberdari grants. The petitioner filed an application for conferment of proprietary rights of the said land. The reports obtained from the field staff were in his favour and the Collector, Burewala also gave a favourable report. The District Collector, however, referred the case to respondent with his recommendations. The case remained with the respondent for more than a decade without any decision. The petitioner was constrained to file Writ Petition No.3395 of 1996 which was disposed of on 5-6-1996 with a direction to the respondent to decide the case within three months.
The case was disposed of on 5-6-1996 rather unceremoniously and the petitioner approached the Court against with Writ Petition No.7613 of 1996. This time after hearing all concerned, the writ petition was allowed on 26-3-1998 and the respondent was directed to decide the matter afresh.
Thereafter the application was rejected vide impugned order dated 7-6-1996 by the respondent.
Before I proceed further I may state here that written statement has been filed in this case by the respondent. The fact that the petitioner is a permanent lamberdar and that the land stood allotted to him stands admitted. It is further admitted that the Municipal, Committee, Burewala is a second class Municipal Committee and the land is located beyond three miles prescribed limit, known as prohibited zone. However, the order has been supported with reference to the reason thereof.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in view of the said admitted facts, the learned respondent has acted without' lawful authority while declining to grant the said application on the ground narrated in the impugned order.
3. Learned A.A.-G., on the other hand, contends that the learned respondent has correctly held that since difference between a first class and second class Municipal Committee has been done away under the provisions of Punjab Local Government Act, 1975, and although the land is located beyond three miles but within five miles of the said prohibited zone the petitioner is not entitled to the grant of proprietary rights.
4. I have given some thought to the said contentions of the learned counsel and the learned Law Officer with reference to the said admitted factual background.
5. Now, according to the terms of the Notification (Annexure "A") (para.12(ii) the land is not to be sold to a lamberdar if "it falls within prohibited zone, i.e. Within a radius of 10 miles from Corporation, five miles from a 1st Class Municipality, three miles from a Second Class Municipality, two miles from a Town Committee and one mile from Railway station." It will thus, be seen that the said limits have been set out in the notification for the specific purpose of creating a prohibition in the matter of sale of lands to the lamberdars. Now, the admitted position is that the land which is subject- matter of the said application is located beyond three miles limit of Burewala Municipality which was a Second Class Municipality. It is regrettable that respondent No.1 proceeded to decide the application filed in the year 1977, vide the impugned order in the year 1999 and while so doing completely failed to consider that the Notification was issued on 13-7-1976, i.e. Long after the promulgation of the Punjab Local Government Act, 1975. It would thus, mean that while interpreting the said Notification reference could not have at all been made to the said Act and the matter had to be decided upon the express provisions of Notification itself.
6. Now, it is a matter of record that no local council as prescribed in the said Act of 1975 ever came into existence for the reason that no Local Government or Local Council election took place anywhere in the country including the Province of Punjab till such time that the said Act was repealed by the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979. The learned respondent No.1 has in fact treated on a very dangerous path. Under the same provision of law i.e. Whereby the distinction between a first class and second class municipality was done away i.e. Section 8(iv) (proviso), it was declared that all municipalities and towns constituted under the Municipal Administration Ordinance, 1960 and Basic Democracies Order, 1959 shall constitute municipalities under the said Act. Meaning thereby that the difference between a town and municipality was also done away.
Now, the prohibitory zone with reference to Town Committee is two miles. It can well be argued on behalf of any aggrieved party with reference to the said reasoning that the prohibitory zone in respect of first class municipality would be two miles.
7. Now, as noted by me above, the Notification was issued long after the promulgation of the said Act, 1975 on 3-4-1975. Had the intention of the Provincial Government been the one being expressed by the learned respondent No.1, instead of mentioning the local councils established under the said repealed laws, a mention of the local councils sought to be constituted under the said Act of 1975 would have been made. It will, thus, be seen that the provisions of said Act of 1975 could not have been referred to for purposes of interpreting the said Notification and thereby depriving the petitioner of his admitted entitlement to obtain the proprietary rights in the land upon fulfillment of other conditions of the said Notification.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further drawn my attention to another order of the respondent, passed on 25-5-2004 whereby the proprietary rights in the same square have been conferred upon another larriberdar. Needless to state that it has not all been controverted that otherwise the petitioner is entitled to the conferment of proprietary rights as reported by the Sub- Divisional and District Collectors.
9. This writ petition is accordingly allowed. The impugned order, dated 7-6-1999 of the respondent is declared without lawful authority and is set aside. The result would be that the application filed by the petitioner shall be accepted and subject to fulfillment of all other conditions laid down in the said notification (Annexure "A"), the proprietary rights shall be conferred upon him.
10. A copy of this order immediately be remitted to the Secretary Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore.