' ZAFAR IQBAL CHAUDHRY, J.---Through this petition under Article 199 of Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, Khurshid Ahmed petitioner has challenged the orders dated 8-12-2004 and 17 12-2007, passed by Member (Judicial-IV), Board of Revenue Punjab, Lahore.
2. The brief facts of the case are that Muhammad Bakhsh son of Jhanda (father of Khurshid Ahmad, petitioner) submitted an application to the Assistant Commissioner/Collector, Toba Tek Singh that the. State land comprising Killa Nos. 5 to 7, 8 min, 13 min, 14 to 16 measuring ' 61-Kanals, 6 Marlas situated in Chak No, 308/GB was under his cultivating possession and that he may be allowed to acquire the proprietary rights of the said land. The Assistant Commissioner/Collector/S.D.O. Toba Tek Singh vide order dated 28-12-1965 rejected the said application on the ground that the disputed land was never allotted to father of the petitioner (Muhammad Bakhsh) under the Ejected Tenants Scheme and the land was resumed in favour of State. The said land was allotted to Muhammad Tufail Lumberdar under the Pedigree Livestock Scheme. The appeal and revision petition filed by the petitioner were also rejected by the Additional Commissioner, Sargodha Division and by the Member Board of Revenue, Punjab, vide orders dated 7-8-1967 and 20-10-1967 respectively. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an application to the AC/Collector, T.T. Singh for restoration of land but it was filed vide order dated 29-9-1980. Another application for restoration of land met the same fate on 31-10-1981. Feeling aggrieved, the present petitioner filed an appeal in the Court of Additional Commissioner, Sargodha, which was accepted on 6-3-1982 and the case was remanded to the then Deputy Commissioner, T.T. Singh. The District Collector rejected application for restoration of land vide order dated 4-2-1985 and directed the petitioner to apply for alternate land. Later on, the application for allotment of alternate land was accepted by the then Deputy Commissioner, Toba Tek Singh vide order dated 25-4-1988 and land measuring 61-K, 6-M situated in Chak No,754/GB, Tehsil Kamalia was allotted to them. As the said land was already leased out to one Abdul Majid under Temporary Cultivation Lease Scheme, therefore, possession could not be delivered. However, the D.C. Vide his order dated 21-6-1992 declared the order of his predecessor dated 25-4-1988 as illegal and review was sought which was granted by the Commissioner. Consequently, the order dated 25-4-1988 regarding allotment of alternate land was set aside vide order dated 22-9-1988.
Later on, an appeal filed before the then Commissioner, Faisalabad Division was dismissed vide order dated 10-4-2001. Being aggrieved by the said order the petitioner filed revision petition which was dismissed on 8-12-2004 by the Member (Judicial-IV), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and the Review Petition filed against the said order was also dismissed on 17-12-2007 by the Member (Judicial-IV), Board of Revenue Punjab, Lahore Hence, this petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Courts below have not considered the entitlement of the petitioner in accordance with the Ejected Tenant Scheme and the land measuring 61-Kanals situated in Chak No, 308/GB, District Toba Tek Singh was allotted by the S.D.O/Collector, Toba Tek Singh to the predecessor in interest under the Ouzara Scheme which later on was merged into the Ejected Tenant Scheme. An application for grant of proprietary rights to them was rejected on 20-1-1965 and the land was allotted to one Muhammad Tufail, Lambardar on 9-2-1967. He further contends that the disputed land was not reserved for Lambardari grant.
Moreover, the disputed land measured 61-Kanals whereas land allotted under Lambardari Scheme should be 100-Kanals. So, the Lambardar may be allotted some other land and the disputed land be resorted in favour of the petitioner. It is also contended that case of the petitioner fell under the Ejected Tenants Scheme and the Government had already granted proprietary rights to the allottees under this scheme in the year, 1960 while the Ejected Tenants Scheme was enforced in the year, 1948. It is next contended that the petitioner was fully entitled for the grant of allotment and keeping in view the entitlement the petitioner was allotted alternate land in Chak No,753/GB but its possession was not delivered to the petitioner in spite of repeated appeals and revisions and claim of the petitioner had been ignored on technical grounds. Lastly, it is contended that the impugned orders dated 8-12-2004 and 17-12-2007 passed by the learned Member (Judicial-iv), Board of Revenue Punjab, Lahore may be set aside and either the allotment made to the petitioner in Chak No, 308/GB may be restored or some other available land in the Chak may kindly be ordered to be allotted to the petitioner.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also gone through the impugned orders .And the report submitted by the District Officer (Revenue), Toba Tek Singh, which shows that the predecessor in interest of the petitioner was allotted land in the year, 1948-49 but it did not fall under the Ejected Tenants Scheme which was promulgated in the year, 1952 and the land resumed from the petitioner had already been allotted to respondent No,
3. The contention raised by the petitioner to the effect that the land in question was allotted to his father namely, Muhammad Bakhsh under the "Guzara Scheme" by the S.D.O/Collector, Toba Tek Singh on 17-5-1949, which was later on merged with "Ejected Tenants Scheme" is not substantiated in the light of the report submitted by the District Officer (Revenue), Toba Tek Singh wherein it has specifically been stated that the land in question was allotted to the predecessor of the petitioner in the year, 1948-49 under the scheme of temporary cultivation which has not been merged in the scheme of Ejected Tenants which was promulgated in the year, 1952 and subsequent Ejected Tenants Scheme issued by the Board of Revenue, Punjab from time to time. The Ejected Tenants Scheme was promulgated in the Punjab through Government Memorandum No, 650-TH, dated 17-7-1952. According to this scheme, the following classes of refugees and non-refugees who but for the allotments, would have had no mean of subsistence were to be accommodated:--
(i) The tenants who had lost their tenancies as a result of agrarian legislation, permitting reservation of areas for "Khud Kasht" by landowners;
(ii) Landless refugee tenants holding temporary allotment of evacuee land, who in respect of the excess areas became tenants of other allottees under the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme; and
(iii) Pre-partition tenants of evacuee lands whose holding were reduced to 8 acres irrigated or 12 1/2 acres un-irrigated land.
' It appears that the allotment order dated 17-5-1949 on which thee petitioner relied upon pertains to the allotment of land in question of lease under Temporary Cultivation Scheme, therefore, the contention raised by the petitioner to the effect that their claim comes within the purview of Ejected Tenants Scheme is not fortified from the above said allotment order. It is clear that the petitioner had not been able to produce the original orders of allotment in favour of his predecessor- ininterest under the Ejected Tenants Scheme. However, there is a copy of Square No, 24 Chak No, 302/GB, Tehsil and District Toba Tek Singh in which the predecessor Jalal Din has been entered as self-cultivating of Killa Nos. 21 to 25 from Kharif 1952 to 1957. He has been dispossessed and not in possession of land since 1967. Moreover, the petitioner had not been able to produce documentary evidence that he was ever allotted land under any scheme. As such the grant of proprietary rights of alternate allotment does not arise. The Revenue Courts have clearly thrashed out the issues of their stand and came to the conclusion that even the. Deputy Commissioner's order dated 25-4- 1988 on which the petitioner relied upon had been specifically ordered to be reviewed vide order dated 21-6-1992 passed by the then District Collector which was reviewed and set aside vide order dated 22-9-1998 passed by the Deputy Commissioner/Collector and yet again the petitioner was refused proprietary rights vide order dated 8-8-2000 passed by the Deputy Commissioner. The appeal before the Commissioner, Faisalabad Division vide order dated 10-4-2001, was also dismissed.
5. It is well-established that under section 8 of Board of Revenue Act the review petition was only competent if any new and important matter or the evidence was brought on record, which despite the exercise of due diligence was earlier not within the knowledge of the party at the time of passing of order or in case of any error or mistake apparent on the face of record. The learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any illegality or jurisdictional defect in the impugned orders. The learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to establish his case from any iota of evidence. Mere oral assertions cannot be made basis for interference in writ jurisdiction. I do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed in limine.