AITZAZ-UR-RASHID KHAN, MEMBER (COLONIES).- This case has been taken-up in pursuance of judgment dated 9.10.2000 passed in Writ Petition No. 20402-2000 by the Honourable High Court, whereby the case was remanded to the Board of Revenue for decision of application find by the petitioners for conferment of proprietary rights.
2. Brief facts of the case are that land measuring 48 acres and 5 kanals situated in Chak No. 8/3-L, Tehsil Shorkot, District Jhang was allotted to Muhammad Din son of Nabi Bakhsh, predecessor-in- interest of the present petitioners, under Bara Reclamation Scheme vide District Collector's order dated 10.5.1952. The allottee applied for conferment of proprietary rights on 24.3.1960 contending that he had paid the Government dues and nothing was outstanding against him.
2. Subsequent report by the Tehsildar and Revenue Assistant Jhang tend to indicate that the allottee had paid lagen upto Rabi 1960. The original allottee died and thereafter the allotment was transferred in favour of the legal heirs under Section 19-A of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 by the D.C./District Collector, Jhang vide order dated 27.7.1980. The Deputy Commissioner also allowed them to purchase the proprietary rights of 194 kanals and 10 marlas of land, to the extent of their share, subject to the payment of outstanding Government dues. He also ordered the inclusion of Wanda Sarkar in the Schedule after obtaining possession. The case for execution of conveyance deed in favour of the petitioners was find in peshi and the execution of conveyance deed was allowed by the D.C./District Collector on 232.2.1983 but the same was not issued as the land was situated within the limits of prohibited zone of Town Committee, Ahmadpur Sial. Muhammad Arshad, one of the legal heirs of the allotee submitted an application for execution of conveyance deed on the ground that the other allottees of the said scheme had been granted proprietary rights of the area situated within the prohibited zone and conveyance deeds have also been issued in their favour. The D.C./District Collector sought advice in respect of the land allotted under Bara Reclamation Scheme, now falling within the prohibited limits of Municipal Committee, Ahmadpur Sial that came to be declared as such in the year 1979 while the allotment was made in 1962. The case was under process when the petitioners find Writ Petition No. 20402/2000. The Honourable High Court, vide order dated 9.10.2000, remanded the case to the Board of Revenue for decision of petitioners' application for conferment of proprietary rights.
Consequently, the case has been taken-up for hearing on judicial side.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and have examined the relevant record of the Deputy Commissioner, Jhang. The main contention of the petitioners is that the proprietary rights of the land to the extent of their share have been conferred by the Deputy Commissioner/District Collector on 27.7.1980, but the conveyance deed has not so far been issued on the ground the land in question is situated within the prohibited zone. He contended that the conveyance deeds have also been issued to other allottees whose land was located within the prohibited zone of Municipal Committee, Ahmadpur Sial which was created in 1979. He argued that the case of the petitioners has been delayed unnecessarily in the Deputy Commissioner's office.
4. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners and have examined the record available on the file. The record produced by the representative of the Deputy Commissioner, Jhang as well as representative of the Secretary (Colonies), Board of Revenue have also been perused, It is not disputed that the petitioners fulfilled the terms and conditions under which the land was allotted to Muhammad Din at the time of grant of proprietary rights. The case lingered on in the office of District Collector and, ultimately, he sought advice from the Board of Revenue on 16.12.1998 as to whether proprietary rights could be granted for the land in question as it was included in the prohibited zone on establishment of Town Committee Ahmad Pur Sial, District Jhang that acquired the status of Municipal Committee in 1979. The Board of Revenue, vide letter dated 11.3.1999, in turn, sought a clarification from the District Collector as to how proprietary rights had been granted for the land that was included in the prohibited zone. The petitioners 15478/2000 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 petitioner 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 Appear No. 846 of 1997 find 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 above" mentioned contentions.
For the foregoing reasons, this appeal is accepted, the judgment dated 25.1.1996 of the Lahore High Court in W.P. No. 81/1977 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 set aside 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, AN 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 ROR No. 831/1975-76 tilted 'Ata Muhammad v. The State' was taken-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 find a Writ Petition No. 15478/2000 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 be applicability of the particular statement of conditions.
4. I have heard AN 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 find 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 was not appreciated properly in terms of the direction of the Honourable Supreme Court.
5. I have considered the submissions made by AN Muhammad who appeared on behalf of the petitioner and have also examined the record produced by the representative of 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 applications for grant of proprietary rights is, therefore, not 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 the 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 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 fulfilled 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 issued in their favour for the land in question in due course. The petition is disposed of accordingly.