' Muhammad son of Rajah All petitioner was allotted a piece of land measuring 10 Acres 3 Kanals 14 Marlas under the Well Sinking Scheme by the learned Collector, Faisalabad on 27-7-1960. Physical possession of the land was also handed over to the petitioner. The order of allotment, Annexure 'A' and the schedule pertaining to the land in question, Annexure `E' show that the land when allotted to the Petitioner was "uncommanded". Out of said land 3 acres of land was occupied by the WAPDA for construction of a Grid Station. On 30-12-1968 learned Collector Faisalabad directed the resumption of land on the report of the representative of the Governor Inspection's Team that the land in question was not State waste land. The petitioner filed an appeal against the order of the learned District Collector which was heard and dismissed by the learned Additional Commissioner
(Rev) on 24-6-1969. Revision Petition of the petitioner against the said order was also dismissed by the learned Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue on 25-9-1969. It was held that the land in question was partly cultivable when it was allotted to the petitioner. This order of the learned Member was assailed by the petitioner through this Constitutional petition. This petition was Admitted to regular hearing by a learned Division Bench of this Court consisting of their Lordships Mr. Justice Sardar Muhammad Iqbal and Mr. Justice Muhammad Afzal Zullah, as their Lordships then were, on 10-12-1969, on the ground that the point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner needed consideration. Status quo order was also passed in favour of the petitioner. The case of the petitioner is that he is in cultivating possession of the land in question for the last more than 30 years and that he brought the uncommented land under plough by making huge investment of money and labour. It is argued that the land has now become attractive and very valuable. Learned counsel says that the petitioner has built houses on the land in question wherein he is living. He contends that the petitioner is entitled to the transfer of the land under paragraph 15 of the Notification No,COL. 26/2-56 dated 23-9-1959 which says that in case the petitioner exercises his option to purchase the land, the Authority shall allow him to purchase the land. Learned counsel relics upon Rafique Ahmad v. Thal Development Authority (PLD 1974 Revenue 87). Representative of the respondent has been heard.
2. The petitioner is in possession of the land in question. He has developed the land. The Khasra Girdawri pertaining to the year 1960 shows that the petitioner is in possession of the land and that he brought the land under plough and cultivated wheat crop. After 1960, the petitioner has continuously been in possession of the land. I am of the view that the petitiOner fulfils all the terms and conditions for the grant of ownership rights to him. It is not advisable at this late -stage that the petitioner should be deprived of the piece of land which was allotted to him more than 30 years before. This being so, I do not find any hurdle in granting the ownership rights to him over the land in question. Admittedly, the petitioner had been paying rent to the Government without any default.
He has also given his option to purchase the land in question as mentioned above. Representative of the respondent contends that the land was partly cultivable and was already under plough when it was allotted to the petitioner and as such it could not be transferred in his name under the existing law. There is no force in the contention of the representative inasmuch as there was sufficient material to show that land in question was lying "uncommanded" when it was given to the petitioner under the Well Sinking Scheme. The very schedule of the land issued by the Revenue Authorities demonstrates beyond doubt that the land was "uncommanded". Reference in this behalf can usefully he made to Annexure 'E'. The schedule was not disputed by the respondents. By lapse of time a vested right was created in favour of the petitioner to remain in possession and to claim the ownership right of the land in question under the law. This being so I feel no hesitation in accepting the writ petition and in consequence the impugned orders are set aside by declaring the same without lawful authority and of no legal consequence. A direction is given to the learned District Collector to grant the ownership rights to the petitioner within next 30 days without fail.
Accordingly the petition succeeds and is allowed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.