' JAVAID NISAR SYED, MEMBER (JUDICIAL-IV)--The petitioners have filed this revision petition under section 164 of the West Pakistan Land. Revenue Act, 1967 against the order dated 22.02.2012, passed by the Addl. Commissioner (Revenue), Sargodha Division, Sargodha.
2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that District Officer (Revenue), Bhakkar vide order dated 08.03.2011 declared the respondents ineligible for grant of proprietary rights of land bearing Khasra Nos. 262 to 264, 266, 271 to 275, measuring 388-Kanals 08-Marlas situated in Chak No, 1/RH, Tehsil Kaloor Kot, District Bhakkar under notification dated 09.07.2001. Feeing aggrieved by that order, Muhammad Hanif present petitioner filed an appeal in the Court of Addl. Commissioner, Sargodha Division which was dismissed vide order dated 22.02.2012. Hence, this revision petition.
3. Arguments heard and record perused.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the disputed land is reserved for Charagah Abadi Deh and the DO(R) illegally and un-lawfully allotted the same to the respondents No, 3 to 6 under notification dated 09.07.2001 without getting de-reserved the said land from Charagah Abadi Deh. The disputed land cannot be allotted to the said respondents for the reason that it is reserved for Abadi Deh. The petitioners are equally entitled to utilize the said property, therefore, they have challenged the said illegal allotment. The Colony Department has issued a number of notifications wherein, it is clearly laid down that without de-reserving land by the order of the competent authority, it cannot be allotted to anyone. Moreover, one of the respondents Muhammad Khan is a government servant and he is not resident of that locality. Therefore, he is not entitled for allotment of the said land according to the provisions of notification dated 9.7.2001.
Similarly, the respondent No, 3 is also resident of Noor Pur Thal District Khushab and he is also a big landlord. The lease of the respondents expired in the year 2000 which was not extended by the competent authority. Therefore, respondents are not entitled for grant of proprietary rights. It is settled law that property reserved for a permanent scheme cannot be allotted under any other scheme without de-reserving the same. Finally, it was prayed that the revision petition may be accepted.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents No, 3 & 4 argued that the petitioners have already availed the remedy of revision petition in the Board of Revenue, Punjab on 23.07.2011 where their request was declined. Now, the petitioners have concealed this fact of the case. The petitioner is neither the aggrieved person nor has any nexus or concern with the land in question. The petitioner is habitual litigant who has entangled the respondents into this protracted litigation. At the time of allotment, the land in question was banjer which was brought under plough by the petitioner by spending huge amount and putting in hard labour. The Commissioner, Sargodha Division granted proprietary rights of the said land on 23.07.1989 but due to the frivolous litigation by the petitioner, the said order could not be implemented. This land is not Charagah. The petitioner was appointed teacher on 5.3.1993 whereas he was declared eligible for grant of proprietary rights by order dated 17.12.1988 of Deputy Commissioner, Bhakkar under notification dated 20.04.1983. The respondents have already deposited government dues @ Rs, 750/-. The order dated 22.02.2012 is well-reasoned and justified whereby no irregularity or illegality has been committed. Finally, it was prayed that the revision petition may be dismissed.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents almost. Corroborated the contention of respondents No 3 & 4 and prayed for rejection of the revision petition.
7. I have considered the arguments advanced by counsel for the petitioner and have also gone through record of the case file. It is evident from the impugned order that after remand of the case, the DOR himself visited the site on 09.02.2011 and observed that the entire land was being cultivated and the same was not charagah. Thereafter, Muhammad Khan, respondent was granted proprietary rights on 8.3.2011. Muhammad Khan deposited all the government dues and conveyance deed was executed in his favour. Later on, Muhammad Hanif present petitioner challenged the order of grant of proprietary rights and execution of conveyance deed through appeal filed before the Addl. Commissioner, Sargodha Division which was dismissed on 22.02.2012.
The conveyance deed can only be cancelled under section 30(2) of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 if fraud is committed by the beneficiary. The respondent was appointed teacher after 5 years of getting the land in question on lease. But in this case, no fraud is committed and the competent authority has granted proprietary rights on the basis of fulfillment of the terms and conditions of the lease agreement. Application for cancellation of conveyance deed submitted by the present petitioner Muhammad Hanif went up to the level of Board of Revenue, Punjab and the same was filed on 23.07.2011 after due consideration upon the same. The reports of the District Collector dated 31.05.2011 and 07.08.2012 obtained by this Court are very comprehensive. It is established from the record that the land in question is neither charagah nor it was reserved for abadi deh as the land already reserved for this purpose has not yet been fully utilized. The instant revision petition has been filed against the concurrent orders which do not suffer from any legal and factual infirmity.
8. The nutshell of the above narration is that the revision petition is dismissed being without merit and cogence.
9. This case was reserved for orders on 18.12.2013 which is being announced today I .e .
29.01.2014. Revision .