RAZA ALI, MEMBER (COLONIES).- This case has been remanded by the Supreme Court vide order dated 21.11.1992, for fresh decision in accordance with law and precedents.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner Said Amir was leased out state land comprising lot No. 18 measuring 98 Kanals, 5 Marlas, in Chak No. 188/NB, Tehsil Sargodha under 15 years lease scheme in the year 1971. As the said land was then stricken with thur & sam and was unfit for cultivation, the petitioner applied to the District Collector for exchange with the disputed state land, which the District Collector, refused vide his order dated 27.6.1972. The I titi mer filed an appeal against this order, before the Additional Commissioner, Sargodha Division, who vide his order dated 6.10.1972 accepted the appeal and allowed exchange of lot No. 18 with the disputed land comprising Sqr. No. 29, Kila Nos. 1 to 10, 14,15 measuring 98 Kanals, 15 Marlas in the same Chak, which was on yearly basis scheme with father of the petitioner. The petitioner also paid the dues.
Against this order of the Addl. Commissioner, one person Wali Muhammad filed revision petition before the Member (Colonies), which was dismissed by the Member (Colonies) on 19.10.1978. Said Wali Muhammad filed Writ Petition No. 1908 of 1979, in the High Court, which allowed on 16.11.1980 and the order of Member (Colonies), dated 19.10.1978 was declared as of without lawful authority and the case was remanded to Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue, Punjab for a fresh decision.
The learned former Member (Colonies) again confirmed the order of the Additional Commissioner, dated 6.10.1972, vide his order dated 13.5.1982 and rejected the revision petition. Consequently, the petitioner requested for the grant of proprietary rights under Notification dated 3.9.1979. The District Collector, vide his order dated 11.8.1982 refused the request of the petitioner on the plea that the land in dispute was Charagah for which no proprietary rights could be granted. Against this order of the District Collector, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Sargodha Division, on the ground that the District Collector in the absence of the petitioner passed the above- mentioned order. The Commissioner, however, dismissed the appeal of the petitioner. Whereafter the revision petition was filed before the Member (Colonies), against this order of the Commissioner. The learned Member (Colonies) vide his order dated 1.3.1984 dismissed the revision petition. Further, the petitioner went in writ petition before the High Court. The Honourable High Court on 1.10.1989 also dismissed the writ petition. The petitioner feeling aggrieved of this order went in the Supreme Court challenging the order of the High Court. The Supreme Court vide judgment dated 21.11.1992, was pleased to hold as under:- "Since the impugned order of the learned Member, Board of Revenue, had proceeded on a misunderstanding of the allotment, we allow the appeal and remand the case for fresh decision in accordance with law and precedents."
3. The case was being dealt with on the Executive side and on the request of the petitioner, the same has been fixed in Peshi to be heard on judicial side.
4. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel and have examined the relevant record.
5. It has been contended by the petitioner in the Supreme Court that the authorities concerned in numerous similar cases had confirmed proprietary rights to the lease holders of excess area after maintaining 39 Acres as Charagah. In this case the Charagah land has been stated to be 70 acres, which is over and above 39 acres required for Charagah. The learned counsel for the petitioner has pleaded that the disputed 84 1/2 Kanals allotted to the petitioner under 15 Years Lease Scheme in exclusive of an area of 39 acres required for Charagah, may be excluded from Charagah and proprietary rights of the same may be granted to the petitioner, who otherwise fulfils all other conditions. The contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner appears to be reasonable. In case the Charagah land is 70 Acres, then the proprietary rights of the disputed land i.e. 84 Kanals should be granted to the petitioner by excluding the area from the land reserved for Charagah.
6. In view of the above observations, I accept the appeal and remand the case to the District Collector, Sargodha for compliance of the above direction.