' This Constitutional petition has been filed by the petitioners to call in question the order, dated 8- 7-1999 passed by Deputy Commissioner, Pakpattan Sharif, respondent No,1 restoring the internal path, through the land of the petitioners Square No,25, Killas Nos.15/2, 25 and 16 situated in Chak No,339/EB, Tehsil Arifwala, District Pakpattan Sharif.
2. The facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that an application for the restoration of any internal path through the land of the petitioners situated in Square No,25, Killas Nos.15/2, 25 and 16, was filed by the inhabitants of the Deh through respondent No,2 and respondent No,1 vide order, dated 8-7-1999 passed the impugned order on the basis of the report of the Field Staff and directed to restore internal path through the land of the petitioners.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that without establishing the fact that, whether the internal path had already been sanctioned, it was restored through the impugned order.
4. The comments were called from respondents Nos.1 and 2 and respondent No,3 contested the allegations raised in the writ petition. The respondents in their comments have stated that the path in dispute was shown in Missal Haqiat Ishtimal for the year 1963-64 and the Staff had advertently omitted to implement the same in the subsequent Jama Bandis for the year 1981-82 and that the petitioner and others had demolished the passage.
5. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record.
6. The Naib-Tehsildar and Revenue Patwari of the Halqa alongwith the Revenue Record were present. The petitioners had placed on record copy of the record of rights of Square No,25 for the year 1989-90 issued on 2-1-1993, wherein there is no entry of the internal path in the land of the petitioners, Square No,25, Killas Nos.15/2, 16 and 25. Neither any entry of the internal path has been made in the record of rights for the year 1993-94. The Naib-Tehsildar and Revenue Patwari have not shown any order for the sanction of the internal path running through the land of the petitioners. The Revenue Staff has not been able to show any document, in which the entries of the implementation of the order for sanctioning the path have been made. Had path been sanctioned, it would have been implemented in the Revenue Record for instance "Fard Taqseem Indoruni Rassatajat, Naqsha Masavi, Khasra Girdawari Pert Plan of the Deh. All the abovesaid documents are silent about the sanctioning of the path. The Revenue Staff had tampered with the record by making an entry in the Missal Haqiat Ishtimal for the year 1963-64. It is pertinent to mention here that the consolidation proceedings were held in the Chak, but the Consolidation Officer while confirming the scheme of the consolidation has not passed any order for the sanction of the internal path from the land of the petitioners.
7. From the scanning of the record, it reflected that no path was sanctioned ever' through the land of the petitioner. The Revenue Staff tampered with the record in connivence with respondent No,3 by making an entry in Missal Haqiat Ishtimal for the year 1963-64. Thus, it is observed that there was no path sanctioned or existed through the land of the petitioners.
8. Now the petitioners have placed on record copy of the record of rights of the land through which respondent No,1 had restored the internal path. In column of ownership of the record of rights for the years 1989-90, and 1993-94 the petitioners are entered as owners of the land and not Provincial Government. It is settled principle of law that after the payment of the full price of the land and issuance of proprietary deed, the allottee/tenant becomes the full owner of the land as held by the Honourable Supreme Court in case of Elam Din v. Muhammad Din PLD 1964 SC 842 and PLD 1971 BJ
38. After the issuance of proprietary deed, the property comes out of the ambit of Colony/Revenue functionaries'
9. Now the question for determination is that after the issuance of proprietary deed, the petitioners were the full owners of the suit land and whether respondent No,1 was competent to sanction or restore any internal path without the consent of the owners. Section 30 of Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab), Act, 1912 contemplates acquisition of proprietary rights, which is reproduced below:-- ' Section 30. Acquisition of proprietary rights.--- (1) Notwithstanding anything entered in any statement of conditions under the Government Tenants (Punjab) Act, 1893, a tenant, who either in pursuance of any such condition or otherwise by agreements with, or under rules issued by the Provincial Government has acquired proprietary rights in any land included in his tenancy shall in respect of such land cases to be subject to any statement of conditions issued under the abovementioned Act: Provided always that he shall in respect of such land be bound by the conditions set out in Schedule II of this Act and be bound by the other provisions of this Act applicable to proprietors of land."
' The Schedule II referred to in section 30 has provided conditions applicable to the grantees, who acquired the proprietary rights. Exception one of Schedule-II provided that:--
(1) Exceptions of Channels, rights to minerals.--- The Government does not grant to the grantee, but hereby absolutely excepts and reserves to itself out of and in respect of the said land (1) all grounds situated in the said land or any part thereof already marked out, excavated or otherwise utilized for the distributory channels, and (2) all existing rights to and over all mines and minerals, coals, gold washings, earth oil and quarries in or under the said lands or any parts thereof, together with all easements heretofore enjoyed by the Government in respect of the said lands, or any part thereof. And it likewise excepts and reserves the rights of the public to use existing thoroughfares travelling the said lands or any part thereof including a width of 1-1/2 Karams on either side of survey base lines, and also any lines of road which, though not yet made, have been marked out upon the ground."
10. From the plain reading of the provisions of section 30(1) and clause (1) of Schedule-II referred to in section 30, it is manifestly clear that the Government had reserved the rights of the public to use the existing thoroughfares traversing the said land or any part thereof including a width of 1-1/2 Karams on either side of survey base lines and also any lines of road which though not yet made have been marked out upon the ground. The present path has not been marked out upon the land.
11.. Paragraph 580 of Volume-I of Colony Manual, 1940 has provided Inter Village (Dehati) roads which is reproduced below:-- 580 Inter-Village (Dehati) Roads.--- Not only should every village be connected with circumjacent neighbours, but where more than one Abadi exists in any village each should directly communicate with the other. The width of those roads was at first either 16-1/2 or 22 feet (3 or 4 Karams). In the Lower Chenab Colony, the former width is almost universal; in the Lower Jhelum Colony, the later. This, in view of the possibility of tree-planting, is the more useful.
' Paragraph 581 contemplates that,
581. Inter-village Roads.--- Inter-Village (Zamindari) roads are required to connect every square in a village road or with the Abadi side. Every colonist must have a free right of way to and from his individual allotment. The width of those roads ranged in the older colonies from 11 to 22 feet (2 to 4 Karams), but in the colonies of the Triple Project the universal width for both inter and inter-village roads is 16-1/2 feet. This procedure has also been followed in the Nili Bar Colony.
' Paragraph 583 provided Alignment of roads through allotted lands, which is reproduced as under:--
583. Alignment of Roads through allotted lands.--- The pre-alignment of a village road, which is now tentatively done by the Irrigation Department simultaneously with the construction of their designed watercourse obviates occasions for disputes and all the statements of conditions now issued provide for a public right of way over any lines of road which, though not yet made, have been marked out upon the plans in the Collector's Office. But in the case of roads which it is desired to demarcate, subsequent to allotment the various statements of conditions applicable to the different classes of grantees should be carefully consulted.
12. From the examination of the above provisions of law, it transpired that inter-village roads have been marked out upon the plans in the Collector's Office but the roads which desired to be demarcated, subsequent to allotment the various statements of conditions applicable to the different classes of grantees are consulted carefully. The statement of conditions of the instant land has not been produced.
13. The contesting respondent No,3 has not placed on record any such document showing the sanction of the path through the land of the petitioner. The Revenue Staff present in the Court has also not been able to establish the sanctioning of the path through the land of the petitioner.
Respondent No,1 without perusal of the Revenue Record has passed the order for the restoration of the path and correction of the Khasra Girdawari and record of rights of the land of the petitioner.
14. After the issuance of proprietary deed, as held in the cases (supra), the property comes out of the purview of Colony hierarchy, therefore, the Collector cannot sanction the path from the land of the full owner without his consent. For that purpose, the Collector would adopt the other measures for instance acquisition of the land under Land Acquisition Act. The payment of compensation to the landowner in cash or transfer of alternate land in his favour. In the instant the petitioners were the full owners of the property and thoroughfare could be sanctioned through their land by acquiring the land for this purpose after adopting all formalities under Land Acquisition Act. As observed above, there was no sanctioned path existing through the land of the petitioner, which could be restored.
15. In view of the above discussion, the writ petition is accepted and the act of respondent No,1 of restoring the path through the land of the petitioner is declared to have been passed without lawful authority and of no legal effect.