AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN, J.---Through this constitutional petition the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the learned Member , Board of Revenue (Colonies) Punjab, Lahore dated 30-8-2010.
2. Brief facts of the case as narrated in the writ petition are the Fazal Mahm ood alias Bagoo son of Noor Muhammad was given Patta Malkiat of land measuring 400 kanal in village Ghanwar Wali Dahri Tehsil Bahawalpur on 4.4.1987. This area lies under the control of Cholistan Development Authority . Through registered transfer deed dated 4.11.1987 which was registered at Serial No. 946 on 15.12.1987 with the office of Sub-Registrar , Bahawalpur , on the basis of this Patta Malkiat mutation was also attested bearing No. 10, dated 5.11.1992. After that the said Fazal Muhammad sold this property to the petitioners who are 89 in numbers. Further submits that in another case of bogus allotment in Cholistan Development Authority the Hon'ble Supreme Court sent the matter to Member Board of Revenue (Colonies) Punjab for scrutiny of all Patta Malkiat and claims of allotment of all the people. The scrutiny was held and an order was announced by the Member Board of Revenue (Colonies) Punjab dated 7.7.2009 in para No! 19 of the judgment at Serial No. 42, the Patta Malkia t of said Fazal Muhammad was declared as genuine. Further states that after purchase of land from said Fazal Muhammad in due course of law mutations of sale were duly incorporate d in the Revenue Record. Further submits that Defence of Pakistan Authority acquired some 250 acres of land in the area for which notification under Section 4 of the Acquisition of Land Act was issued. Thereafter Defence of Pakistan Authority reduced to 100 acres land. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 28.10,1993 which was published in the Gazette at No. 48, dated 1.12.1993 at page No. 2136. In furtherance thereof Notification under Section 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 12.9.2000 which was published in the Gazette on 18.10.2000 for 800 kanals land in which 400 kanals of the petitione rs are included. Further submits that award was announced by the Land Acquisition Collector , Bahawalpur bearin g No. 671, dated 6.10.201 1 wherein list of. 976 land owners has been attached with their award in which name of every petitioner is mentioned therein. Further submits that all other land owners have received their amount of compensation whereas the petitioners applied for the grant of alternate land through their applications moved to the Board of Revenue on 7.5.1995 and 14.5.1995. These applications were not being attended to by the concerned officials^ of Board of Revenue, therefore, some of the petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 1200 of 1995, 1201 of 1995 and 1569 of 1995 praying therein that the officials respondents be directed to process their applications and decide the same in accordance with law. Submits that this Court vide order dated 10.7.1995 disposed of the said writ petition as under:- "The Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore is directed to decide the petitioner's application pending before him in accordance with law and in accordance with the existing policy within three months.
This petition, with this direction stands disposed of."
3. Further submits that on 14.12.1995 the Board of Revenue allowed the applications moved by the petitioners and the Secretary , Colonies Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore wrote a letter to the Settlement Officer, Bahawalpur as under:- "In pursuance of the directions issued by the Hon'ble Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, Bahawalpur in the writ petitions cited above as subject the Board of Revenue, Punjab is pleased to order that the evictees of Mauza Canoanwali Diary Chak No. 28/BC Tehsil and District Bahawalpur whose proprietary rights have been acquired for defence purpose by the Collector Bahawalpur , District Bahawalpur under * Notification No. LAC/92, dated 28.10.1993 may be allowed alternate State land to the extent of 1214 ' acres per family on the same terms and conditions as laid down in this Memorandum No. 2878-85/2295 CIV, dated 20.8.1995 issued for evictees of Islamia University of Bahawalpur ."
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that when the local revenue staff was harassing the petitioners and not acting in accordance with the directions of the Board of Revenue, therefore, the petitioners were constrained to file Writ Petition No. 384 of 1996 in this Court, which was accepted vide order dated 6.2.1996 and the Revenue Officer was directed to implement the order passed by the Board of Revenue. Against the order of the Court Province of Punjab through Collector Bahawalpur opted to file ICA No. 24 of 1996 which was dismissed vide order dated 17.11.2005. During the pendency of the appeal learned counsel contends that the Deputy Commissioner was not happy with the orders of allotme nt of alternate land in the names of the petitioners, therefore, he wrote a letter on 22.4.1996 bearing No. COL/414 0 to the Deputy Secretary (Colonies), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore for withdrawal of order dated 14.12,1995 passed by the Member Colonies in favour of the petitioners. CPLA No. 254-L-2006 was filed in the august Supreme Court of Pakistan against the order of dismissal of ICA dated 17.11.2005.
5. During the pendency of ICA vide order dated 7.11.1996 Board of Revenue Punjab withdrew its of his previous order dated 14.12.1995 regarding alternate land in favour of the petitioner vide order dated 7.11.1996. Once again petitioners challenged this order through Writ Petition No. 222 of 1997 in this Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while disposing of CPLA No. 254-L-2006 remanded the case to the Division Bench of this Court and ordered that ICA No. 24 of 1996 be decided afresh alongwith W.P. No. 222 of 1997 filed by the petitioners as this writ petition was still pending before this Court. Further-submits that after the remand, this Court was pleased to dispose of ICA No. 24 of 1996 as having become infructuous because during that period the order of learned Single Judge dated 6.2.1996 whereby direction was issued to the Government of Punjab to implement the order of Board of Revenue * dated 14.12.1995, this order , of Board of Revenue was recalled by subsequent order dated 7.11.1996. While deciding Writ Petition No. 222 of 1997 Division Bench of this Court set aside the order passed by Board of Revenue dated 7.11.1996 and sent the case to Board of Revenue to decide letter of request dated 22.4.1996 written by the then Deputy Commissioner . Further contends that this letter of D.C. After the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 222 of 1997 remained pending before the Board of Revenue for a 'period of about four years and more than 50 dates of hearing, learned counsel submits, I also appeared before the Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue, Lahore. Ultimately , the petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 1929 of 2007 which was disposed of on 5.9.2007 by this Court with the direction that the Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue, Lahore shall ensure that compliance of order dated 10.5.2006 passed in Writ Petition No. 222 of 1997 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this or|er. Even after a period of 3 years on 30.8.2010 learned Member Board of Revenue observed that Board of Revenue rightly withdrew the earlier allotment order dated 14.12.1995 vide order dated 7.11.1996. After this decision the Membe r (Colonies) also passed the order tasking the District Officer, Revenue, Bahawalpur to send a detail report about the ownership and entitlement of allotment of the petitioners within a period of two months. This order is impugned in this writ petition.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the then Deputy Commissioner who wrote a letter is now Senior Member Board of Revenue and Member Board of Revenue (Colonies) is junior to him. Further contends that when High Court passed order of implementation of the allotment order dated 14-12-1995 and in this way the respondents have committed contempt of court while again declaring that the order of withdrawal of previous order dated 14-12-1995 vide order dated 7-11-1996 is correct one. Further submits that order passed on 7-11-1996 was unilateral and without hearing the petitioners. Further contends that the Member (Colonies) Board of Revenue has mixed the case of entitlement of the petitioners with other people, whereas there is absolutely no nexus with the allotment of other people. Further contends that the letter of Deputy Commissioner was based on mala fide because only one person Muhammad Sharif is petitioner before this Court whereas names of 9 other persons have been fictitiously given in the letter . Further contends that in previously filed writ petition 89 petitioners have been admitted to be owners. In this protracted litigation which is visible from the record of this court Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in such like, cases has observed that the case should not be remanded for further inquiry if remand would tantamount to prolong agony of writ petitioner . Reliance is placed on case titled Hamid Ali Al-Makki and others v . Settlement Commissioner and others 1991 CLC 981 .
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents Cholistan Development Authority contended that in case of any difference the matter can be resolved through Board of Revenue in view of clause 11 of Patta Malkiat.
Further submits that these 89 people are owners of very small portion of land which they purchased from Fazal Muhammad. Further summits that previous order passed by board of revenue dated 14-12-1995 was without inquiry . Further submits that order dated 7-11-1996 was never set aside by this court and this court has remanded the case in the light of letter written by the Deputy Commissioner on 22-4-1996 , therefore, the member Board of Revenue has rightly passed the order .
8. Learned A.A.-G. Submits that the order impugned in the writ petition is not final order , therefore, writ petition is not competent. He has submitted that the, matter is still pending before the Member (Colonies) Board of Revenue and he has passed the directions to DOR to complete the inquiry about the ownership and right of allotment of the petitioners and submit report within two weeks.
9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with the able assistance of the learned counsel.
10. When confronted with the learned A.A.-G. Whether any date is fixed before the board of revenue he was unable to state even he consulted the officials present in Court, even those were unable to inform about fixation of any date of hearing. Further , confronted that within two months report was sent to the Board of Revenue and this question was also answered in negative. Therefore, contention of the learned A.A.-G. Is not factually correct. Even the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted a copy of report and parawise comments submitted by Javid Akhtar Ex-Member (Colonies) in Criminal Original No,45 of 2011 filed in:Writ Petition No,929 of 2007 wherein Mr.Javid Akhtar Ex. Member (Colonies) categorically stated in his report that he has decided the case on 30-8- 2010. On factual side learned A.A.-G. Was also unable to rebut the contentions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The stand taken by the Cholistan Development Authority is also not impressive as Patta Malkiat was given in the name of Fazal Muhamma d and that land was acquired for the public purpose and now the claim of the petitioners is for the alternate land from the colony area, therefore, the contentions raised by the learned counsel for Cholistan Development Authority have no much weight. Now I am going to the point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. No doubt it is very very long and protracted litigation. I have noted here when the order of allotment of alternate land was passed by the Member (Colonies) Board of Revenue on 14-12-1995 and his order was not set aside by this court or the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, this order is still in the field.
The order dated 7-11-1996 was declared to be illegal and without lawful authority by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 22-5-2006 passed in Writ Petition No,222 of 1997. The matter which was sent back to Member (Colonies) Board of Revenue was only with regard to letter of Deputy Commissioner dated 10-4-1996. I will note here that even in this letter if any irregularity was pointed out to the Member (Colonies) Board of Revenue whether any action against any official has been taken till today . I will note here with great concern that it is routine practice of the officials to commit irregularities and wrong in the serious matters relates to public interest. They always in every case punish the people of Pakistan but the senior officers of the Board of Revenue are silent. Even no action has been proposed against any official, if the order dated 14-12-1995 was result of any official's negligence. I am astonished that the entitlement of Fazal Muhammad alias Bagoo was not disputed. The ownership of the petitioners was not disputed. The only point for consideration was whether they were entitled to the alternate land or not. Even no fraud or misrepresentation has been alleged on the part of the petitioners. I have noted that in the impugned order dated 30-8-2010 the learned Member (Colonies) Board of Revenue has generally discussed the matter of allotment keeping in view the general allotment of land in various schemes and giving his findings that much scrutiny is required before the allotment. I find that the case of the petitioners is very simple. The contention of the learned counsel that the whole litigation revolves around the letter written by the then Deputy Commissioner who is now the Senior Members of Board of Revenue and the Member (Colonies) Member Board of Revenue who passed the impugned order is his subordinate. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners has much weight,. Even in the impugned order the Member (Colonies) has seen one side of the picture and the other side which was most impor tant was to see whether there is any fault on behalf of the officials of the board of revenue and the revenue staff of Bahawalpur for which I have seen that absolutely no step has been taken.
11. There is voluminous record available with this file. The file of this case is consisting of more than 600 pages which contains all the orders of passed by Board of Revenue, this Court and August Supreme Court. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners seems to be correct that instead of remanding the case once again to the Board of Revenue it will be appropriate that this case be decided by this Court because no factual inquiry is required and all admitted documents are on the file. The documents which are part of the file are not disputed between the parties, therefore, instead of once again sending back the petitioners to face another decade for the redressal of their grievance, I think it proper when the assistance of the learned counsel' for the parties is available and certified and unrebutted documents are on the file.
12. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the order of alternate land in favour of the petitioners is not against the policy of the Govt. As reliance is placed on Notification No,3215-79/ 3973-C-(ii) issued under Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 (Conditions for purchase of proprietary rights).
Secondly the persons like petitioners whose land has been resumed can be given alternate land. However , the learned counsel for the petitioners admitted that they will be duty bound to pay price of the land also which will be assessed by the respondents in accordance with law for this alternate land.
In the light of what has been discussed above, I am inclined to exercise my extrao rdinary constitutional jurisdiction in favour of the petitioners. Therefore, instant writ petition is allowed and order dated 30-8-2010 is set aside.
Resultantly the order passed by the Member (Colonies) Board of Revenue dated 14-12-1995 will hold the field. The respondents are directed to act in accordance with that order and redress the grievance of the petitioners.