This petition has been filed for review of order dated 12-5-2000 passed by my learned predecessor in pursuance of order dated 26-6-1998 passed by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in Civil Appeal No,846 of 1997 filed by the Board of Revenue etc. against the judgment dated 25-1- 1996 of Honourable High Court.
2. Brief facts of the case have been given in the order passed by the learned Member (Colonies) dated .12-5-2000. The Honourable High Court disposed of the Writ Petition No,15478 of 2000 titled "Ata Muhammad v. MBR and others" declining to make any observation with regard to applicability of the statement of conditions leaving it to the authorities concerned to decide the case for grant of proprietary rights in accordance with law. The petitioner was declared ineligible to get lease rights of State land measuring 101 Kanals and 10 Marlas situated in - Chak No,189/NB, Tehsil and District Sargodha on 25-4-1978 under 15 years Temporary Cultivation Lease Scheme in 1971 from Kharif 1969 onwards, by the D.C/District Collector on 31-12-1975 as his name was not reflected as a tenant in record. The petitioner's appeal and revision petition were dismissed by the Additional Commissioner and the learned Member Board of Revenue vide orders dated 17-3-1976 and 15-4- 1976 respectively. The petitioner invoked the writ jurisdiction of the Honourable High Court. The Honourable High Court accepted the petition setting aside the orders of the District Collector, Additional Commissioner and the learned Member Board of Revenue as illegal, mechanical and of no legal effect restoring the allotment order dated 25-4-1978 and directing that the petitioner's application for grant of proprietary rights be decided expeditiously and in any case by 30th June, 1996. The Civil Appeal No,846 of 1997 filed by the State was decided in the petitioner's favour with the following observations by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan:- "Since this material aspect of the case has not been considered and adjudicated upon by the Revenue Officers concerned who passed the impugned orders, therefore, it will be appropriate to remand the case to the Board of Revenue for disposal of the revision petition of the respondent afresh after considering the abovementioned contentions.
For the foregoing reasons, this appeal is accepted, the judgment dated 25-1-1996 of the Lahore High Court in Writ Petition No,81 of 1977 and the orders dated 31-12-1995, 17-3-1976 and 15-4-1976 of the Collector, the Additional Commissioner (C) and the Board of Revenue (Colonies), respectively are setaside and the case is remanded to the Board of Revenue to decide the revision petition afresh and in case it is found that Noor Muhammad, brother of the respondent had been in cultivating possession of the land as per entries in the Revenue Record, the allotment made in favour of respondent may be allowed to continue and treated as allotment in favour of the three brothers namely Atta Muhammad, respondent, Ali Muhammad and Noor Muhammad and their case for conferment of proprietary rights according to the instructions may be perused and decided in accordance with law. The case shall be decided expeditiously."
3. The petitioner's case in R.O.R. No,831 of 1975-76 titled 'Ata Muhammad v. The State' was 4taken up by the learned Member (Colonies). The learned Member (Colonies), in his order dated 12-5-2000, while holding the petitioner's claim as a lessee in terms of Honourable Supreme Court's order, observed that their case for conferment of proprietary rights would be decided in accordance with the policy decision taken by the Board of Revenue in the future. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner again filed a Writ Petition No,15478 of 2000 which was disposed of by the Honourable High Court without being inclined to make any observation with regard to applicability of the statement of conditions leaving it to the concerned authorities to decide the case for grant of proprietary rights in accordance with law which would include consideration of the question as to applicability of the particular statement of conditions.
4. I have heard Ali Muhammad, brother of Ata Muhammad, petitioner. The relevant register has been produced by Mr. Muhammad Anwar, Colony Clerk of the Deputy Commissioner/District Collector, Sargodha. The petitioner contends that an application for conferment of proprietary rights had been filed in the Colony office of the District Collector, Sargodha within time under the Scheme dated 3-9-1979. He further contended that although the petitioner and his brothers were treated as lessees, but the facts with regard to the grant of proprietary rights to them was not appreciated properly in terms of the direction of the Honourable Supreme Court.
5. I have considered the submissions made by Ali Muhammad who appeared on behalf of the petitioner and have also examined the record produced by the representativeof the Deputy Commissioner/District Collector, Sargodha. I have also gone through the relevant Revenue Record produced by the Patwari Halqa. The relevant register contains an entry of an application from Ata Muhammad son of Nizam Din for conferment of proprietary rights at Serial No,181. dated 9th of December, 1979 in respect of Squares Nos,1, 2, 6, Squares Nos,4 and '5 not being mentioned there.
There is no dispute regarding the land that was allotted to Ata Muhammad under 15 Years Temporary Cultivation Lease Scheme. Absence of square Nos, 4 and 5 in the register for recording application for grant of proprietary rights is, therefore, no material. In the face of possession of Noor Muhammad one of the three brothers to be treated as possession of all the three brothers in terms of the observations of the Honourable Supreme Court, the application by one of them namely Atta Muhammad for grant of proprietary rights in time under the Notification of 3rd September, 1979 suffices for consideration of the case of the three brothers for conferment of proprietary rights as other condition of being in cultivating possession before Kharif 1977. is fulfilled by another brother namely _Noor Muhammad. The concern of the petitioner over the orders of my learned predecessor to grant them proprietary rights under a scheme to be launched in the future is understandable as the amount' to be paid for A obtaining proprietary rights increased from Rs,100 to Rs,500 and Rs,750 per PIU under the schemes of the years 1979, 1983, 1995 and 2001 respectively.
Naturally, the scheme of 1979 is more favourable to them as it would cost them less. The scheme for which they applied was notified on 3-9-1979. Since they futfilled the terms and conditions of this scheme by liberal interpretation in line with of the observations of the Honourable Supreme Court, all the three brothers are held eligible 'for grant of proprietary rights in equal share under this Scheme. The Deputy Commissioner/District Collector should, therefore, 'proceed to determine the cost of land payable towards conferment of proprietary rights. When the cost of land is paid by the petitioner, proprietary rights should be conferred on them under the Notification, dated 3rd September, 1979 and conveyance deed be issued in their favour for the land in question in due course. The petition is disposed of accordingly.