This petition has been filed against the order dated 14-4-2001 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Faisalabad Division, Faisalabad, whereby he dismissed the petitioner's appeal.
2. The facts as borne out from the petition, in brief, are that the petitioner is in illegal possession of State land measuring 1 Kanal and 8 Marlas comprising Killa No,19/21 situated in Chak No,199/JB, Tehsil Chiniot, District Jhang since 1974 and is residing there by raising construction over it. The A.C./Collector, Chiniot, vide order dated 16-5-1996, ordered his ejectment under sections 32/34 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912, by impleading Mst Mumtaz Akhtar, Incharge, Government Girls High School No:199/JB, Tehsil Chiniot as respondent. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Additional Commissioner (Revenue) Faisalabad Division, Faisalabad, who, vide impugned order dated 14-4-2001 dismissed the same. Hence this revision petition.
3. During the pendency of the revision petition, Mst. Mumtaz Akhtar, Incharge Headmistress, Government Girls High School, Chak No,199/JB, Tehsil Chiniot filed an application under Order 1, rule 10 of C.P.C. for being impleaded as party to the proceedings as she was a party as respondent at appellate forum.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of applicant, the Headmistress, Government Girls High School. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is in occupation of the land in dispute and is living with family by constructing residential house since 1974. The petitioner claims that he is eligible for grant of proprietary rights under the Notifications of 1988 and 1993 issued by the Board of Revenue on the basis of long standing possession. He further contended that the both the Courts below have erred in passing the orders against the petitioner. He argued that sufficient land is already available with the School but the petitioner is being victimized due to party factionism. He further argued that the School has not been approved by the Government and has unauthorisedly occupied the State land. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the area in question has been allotted to Education Department for the School but the same has been illegally occupied by the petitioner. He stated that the A.C./Collector has lawfully ordered his ejectment.
5. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and on behalf of the applicant. I have also examined the record available on the file. A perusal of record show that the petitioner has illegally encroached upon the State land. He has not been able to produce any order of allotment in his favour issued by the competent Authority. I have seen the letter dated 13-8-2001 issued by the Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Colonies Department whereby Khasras Nos,19/21 and 22 measuring 16 Kanals and 3 Marlas have been allotted to the Education Department for the construction of Government Girls High School, Chak No,199/GB, Tehsil Chiniot. Area measuring 3 Kanals and 10 Marlas out of the above Khasras numbers was in illicit occupation of Muhammad Ali, the present petitioner and two others who have not come in appeal or revision against the ejectment order. According to copy of Register Haqdaran Zamin for the year 1977-78, Khasra Nos,19/21 (6 Kanals, 3 Marlas) and 22 (8 Kanals, 0 Marla) have been shown to be in possession of Education Department and area measuring 2 Kanals out of Khasta No,19/21 has been shown to be in unauthorized possession of the petitioner. It is evident from the record that the petitioner has illegally occupied the State land, which had been allotted to Education Department for establishment of a School. The status of the petitioner is that of an encroacher and thus he cannot be allowed to retain the land in question. The contention that the case of the petitioner as an illegal occupant is covered under the Board of Revenue, Punjab Police letter of 1988 and 1993 and, as such, he is eligible to purchase it with penal charges is difficult to appreciate. The Revenue Officers have to weigh the merits of the case of an encroachers over a piece of land taking its location into view against the requirement of that piece of land for a public purpose or further development needs of the locality. There has to be a trade off between utilization of a piece of land for a public purpose or a private purpose first before the case of an illegal occupant can be considered for conferment of proprietary rights under the Board of Revenue, Punjab policy letters of 1988 and 1993. It is only when a clear decision is taken in this regard by weighing the pros and cons of the two purposes that the case of an encroacher can be examined and processed under the above policy letters.
6. The A.C./Collector had correctly ordered his ejectment. It is the duty of the Patwari and Girdawar to keep a vigilant eye on encroachments over State property as also that of the Revenue Officers Halqa to promptly initiate action against illegal encroachers on State property. Encroachment of State property has begun to assume alarming proportions with the passage of time as the temptations for encroachments have increased with the rising costs of property when it is observed by the encroachers that prompt action by the State functionaries will not be taken. The result is that with the passage of time, the encroachers tend to add on to construction over property and develop association with it hindering removal of encroachments and resulting in protracted litigation perpetuating the encroachments at the later stage. It is the bound duty of Patwaris, Girdawars and also that of Halqa Revenue Officers to guard against encroachments of the State property both urban and rural and initiate action promptly against illegal encroachers to bring some semblance of discipline in the sphere. These Revenue functionaries are liable to be proceeded against under the rules for their failure to initiate prompt action against illegal encroachers. If an encroachment persists over a long period of time, complicity of all these Revenue functionaries cannot be excluded. No injustice has been done to the petitioner. The petitioner has no case and his petition is dismissed accordingly.