GUL ZARIN KIANI, J.- Application of Section 32 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab Act V of 1912) to the facts of the case falls for construction in the petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution against an order of Member Board of Revenue passed, on 23.9.1993, by which he had affirmed the order passed by Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Lahore Division, Lahore.
2. State land measuring 94 kanals, 17 marlas situate in Chak No. 36/2-L, Tehsil Okara was allotted to the petitioner. Upon payment of its purchase-price, proprietary rights in the above land were conferred upon him. Formal conveyance-deed was not yet issued to the petitioner. Absence of it hardly detracted from transfer of ownership rights in the land to him. The Collector; Additional Commissioner (Revenue) and Member Board of Revenue, all were agreed that proprietary rights in the land were conferred upon the petitioner.
3. The land was in possession of the respondents. The petitioner described them as trespassers on it. On an application submitted by him under Section 32/34 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act 1912, the Collector Sub-Division, Okara, on 5.6.1990, ordered for restoration of possession of the land in his favour. Respondents preferred an appeal from the order. It was allowed, on 27.1.1991, by Additional Commissioner (Revenue). He summed up his conclusions in para 4 of his order. It reads: "I have considered the arguments advanced from both the sides and have also carefully gone through the record of this case. It is evident from the record of this case that the appellants are in possession of the site for the last 20 years and this fact is also not disputed by he respondent No.2. It is also admitted fact that proprietary rights of the above said site has been obtained by the respondent No.2, thus now, the status of the above said site is that of a private property. Under Section 32/34 of Colonization of Government Lands Act, the Collector is not empowered to interfere with the disputes relating to private lands. In these circumstances, the order of the Collector cannot be maintained, the same is set aside. The appeal succeeds". On revision preferred by the petitioner, this order was affirmed, on 23.9.1993, by Member Board of Revenue. Aggrieved of it, the petitioner has come up here in a petition in extraordinary jurisdiction of this court for setting aside of the orders made so far against him by Additional Commissioner (Revenue) and Member Board of Revenue.
4. There was not much dispute that upon payment of purchase-price for the State land and conferment of proprietary rights in it, the land goes beyond the pale of Section 32/34 of Punjab Act V of 1912. Case in Ata Muhammad and others V. Mst. Khurshid Begum- PLD 1964 (WP) Lahore 224 supported this proposition. It was held in this case that "The language employed in this Section clearly shows hat the power vested in the Collector is to safeguard the interests of the State and to save State land from illegal occupation by squatters and trespassers. This section is not intended to be operated for the benefit of one private party contending against another. In other words, any dispute regarding title between two private parties cannot be adjudicated upon under Section 32 referred to above. That question is one which can only be deaIt with by a Civil Court. As authority for this view, one may refer to Ali Muhammad V. Hakim (AIR 1928 Lahore 121) and Jiwana v. Mst.
Sahbi (PLD 1954 Lahore 253)". Upon this view, conclusions arrived at in the impugned order were neither infirm nor fauIty. Therefore, these were neither without lawful authority nor without jurisdiction. In this view of the law, the petitioner is free to take recourse to the civil court for recovery of possession of the land in dispute of which he was the true owner. Some of the observations by Member, Board of Revenue, were beside the point and shall not bind the civil court, when it is called upon to decide the title dispute between the private parties.
In resuIt, writ petition is dismissed in limine.