' A piece of land measuring 71 kanals 3 marlas comprising Killas Nos.16, 17, 23 to 25 in Square No,35 and Killas Nos.11 to 13 of Square No,34 in Chak No,758/GB Tehsil Kamalia, District Toba Tek Singh was allotted to the petitioner under the Ejected Tenants Scheme on 12-6-1962. According to the learned counsel, petitioner is still in cultivating possession of the land in question. In support of his plea, learned counsel has placed reliance on Annexures 'A' to `EA'. An application was moved by the petitioner for the grant of the proprietary rights of land which was heard and dismissed by learned District Collector Toba Tek Singh, on 19-6-1988 on the ground that five acres out of abovesaid land had already been given to the District Council for the construction of a school. This order was challenged by the petitioner by moving an appeal, which was heard and dimissed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Faisalabad on 19-7-1988 vide Annexure 'G'. The revision petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue, on 5-10-1988.
However, learned Member directed the District Collector to verify as to whether the land in question was still needed by the Zila Council for construction of a school in the village. On 30-7-1989 learned Collector came to the conclusion that the land in dispute was not at all needed by the District Council. Even nobody appeared on its behalf before the learned Collector. In this view of the matter, learned District Collector ordered for the withdrawal of the land from the local Zila Council.
He also observed that land shall vest in the ownership of the State. The petitioner on resumption of land moved an application before the learned Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue for the review of his earlier order dated 5-10-1989, which was dismissed by him on 16-11-1989. The petitioner has challenged the propriety of the orders dated 16-11-1989 and 5-10-1988 passed by respondent No,1, Member, Board of Revenue.
2. Learned counsel contends that petitioner as an ejected tenant is entitled to retain the land in question. He further says that petitioner has a right to claim the proprietary rights of the land vide Notification issued by the Government on 3-9-1979. It is clear from the order of the learned District Collector dated 30-7-1989 (Annexure 'K') that the land in dispute is no more needed by the District Council and as such there was absolutely no legal justification with him to say that the land shall now vest in the ownership of the State. The petitioner has a vested right to retain the land in question being an ejected tenant. The fact that the land in dispute is not needed for a school by the District Council has not been disputed by learned Additional Advocate-General. The possession of the land in dispute with the petitioner has also not been challenged. Mushtaq Ahmad, Colony Clerk, D.C. Office, Toba Tek Singh, is present with record of the case. He concedes that the petitioner is in the continuous cultivating possession of the land in question. He discloses that District Council has already constructed a school in the village. He also states that land is no more required by the Zila Council for any purpose whatsoever. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties at some length, including representative of District Collector and perusal of the record, I am of the view that the petitioner has a vested right to claim the ownership rights over the land in question as an ejected tenant. This aspect of the case has not at all been considered by the respondents while refusing the application of the petitioner for grant of ownership rights to him. Learned Law Officer does not dispute the predominant rights of the petitioner to claim the proprietary rights of the land in question. The impugned orders are thus set aside being without lawful authority and of no legal consequence. Learned District Collector, Toba Tek Singh is directed to grant the proprietary rights of the land in question to the petitioner according to law. Accordingly, the petition succeeds and is allowed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.