' According to the averments Of petition, the petitioner claimed to be in continuous possession of the land measuring 100 Kanals bearing Square No, 72 Killas Nos.11/2, 12/2, 13/2, 16 to 25 situated in Chak No, 325 JB., Toba Tek Singh. It is alleged that this land was allotted to respondent No,3 in the year 1964 under Livestock Breeding Scheme, which was later on converted into Lumberdari Scheme. It is further averred that respondent No,3 never cultivated and in addition he also violated other terms and conditions of the said allotment. The petitioner submitted an application before Deputy Commissioner/Collector Toba Tek Singh for resumption of the suit land for its allotment to them, as they did not own any land. This application was marked to respondent No,2 on 5-6-1999 to process and put up. Respondent No,2 during inquiry found violation of the Rules by respondent No,3 and recommended resumption of the suit land vide his report, dated 24-11-1999 and at the same time he ordered for attachment of the land and appointed Muhammad Saleem as Superdar/Receiver resulting petitioners' dispossession from the land and their residential houses.
Order dated 24-11-1999 has been assailed in this Constitutional petition.
2. In response to pre-admission notice Syed Muhammad Zain-ul-Abidin, Advocate for respondent No,3 appeared and the case has been argued at length. Therefore, it is being disposed of as a notice case.
3. The learned counsel for petitioner has contended that the attachment order issued by respondent No,2 was passed by exercising power of Sub-Divisional Magistrate under section 145 of Cr.P.C. Without preparing a separate file of the proceedings under section 145, Cr.P.C. And without any basis. It is further contended that the order has been passed without lawful authority and it carries no value. The learned counsel argued that even if the petitioners are trespasser they cannot be dispossess in arbitrary and illegal manner and Sub-Divisional Magistrate/Assistant Commissioner, Toba Tek Singh has not followed the procedure as provided under Chapter XII of Cr.P.C.
4. Conversely, the learned counsel for respondent No,3 argued that the petitioner admittedly being a trespasser has no locus standi to invoke the Constitutional jurisdiction and the present writ petition is not maintainable. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel has placed reliance on PLD 1982 SC 308. It is further argued that the proceedings through which the petitioners have been dispossessed were initiated under section 32 of the Colonization of Government Land Act and not under section 145 of Cr.P.C.
5. I have given anxious considerations to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for parties and have also gone through the record. The land in dispute is state land and under section 32 of the Colonization of Government Land Act, the Collector is competent to resume the possession of the land if he is satisfied that any person has taken or in possession of the land in a colony, to which he has no right or title. Section 32 reads as under: "32. Power of re-entry in case of Squatters and trespassers.---When the Collector is satisfied that any person has taken or is in possession of land in a colony to which he has no right or title, the Collector may, in addition to any other powers he may possess, forthwith re-enter upon the land and resume possession of it and take possession of all crops, trees and buildings thereon on behalf of Government without payment of any compensation whatsoever."
' The report and parawise comments submitted by respondent No,2 also reveals that the proceedings were not initiated under section 145, Cr.P.C. During arguments it has not been denied by the learned counsel for petitioner that the petitioner has no title, but he has tried to argue that even if he is trespasser he cannot be dispossessed from the land without due course of law. This contention of the learned counsel is devoid of any force for the simple reason that under section 32 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912 the Collector is empowered to enter upon such land and resume possession of it on behalf of the Government. The words 're-enter' and 'on behalf of the Government' makes it clear that this section applies to only those cases in which the Government is entitled to possession of the land and trespasser has interfered with its possession.
It is not necessary for the Government to bring an action against the trespasser for ejectment and the Legislator has provided powers for recovery of land to the Collector as an agent of the Government and has authority to remove the trespasser and resume possession of it on behalf of the Government. The powers vested in the Collector is to safeguard the interest of State and to save the State land from illegal occupation by the Squatters and Trespassers. If the Collector was of the view that respondent No,3 is not self-cultivator and breached the condition of allotment and the petitioners are in possession of the land as being trespasser, he was competent to take action as provided- under section 32 of the Colonization of Governments Land Act. The matter is still sub juice before the Deputy Commissioner/Collector, Toba Tek Singh, who is competent Authority to make final order in this regard.
6. In the light of what has been discussed above this writ petition has no merits. It is, therefore, dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.