عمومی شکایت پر زمین کی الاٹمنٹ منسوخ نہیں ہو سکتی — 2003 SCMR 1931
سپریم کورٹ آف پاکستان کا اہم فیصلہ
⚖️ مقدمے کے حقائق
ایک شخص کو 1971 میں ضلع میانوالی میں 98 کنال 15 مرلے زمین پندرہ سالہ عارضی کاشتکاری اسکیم کے تحت الاٹ کی گئی اور 1972 میں قبضہ بھی دے دیا گیا۔
بعد ازاں ڈپٹی کمشنر نے 1977 میں عمومی شکایت کی بنیاد پر اس کی الاٹمنٹ منسوخ کر دی۔ متاثرہ شخص نے اس فیصلے کو چیلنج کیا، جس کے بعد معاملہ دوبارہ سماعت کے لیے بھیجا گیا۔
🔹 الاٹمنٹ درست قرار پائی
ریمانڈ کے بعد اسسٹنٹ کمشنر، بطور کلکٹر، نے ریکارڈ کا جائزہ لے کر الاٹمنٹ کو حقیقی اور درست قرار دیا۔ تاہم اسی دوران متنازعہ زمین ایٹامک انرجی پلانٹ کے متاثرین کو بھی الاٹ کر دی گئی۔
🔹 لاہور ہائی کورٹ کا فیصلہ
لاہور ہائی کورٹ نے ریونیو حکام کے متعلقہ احکامات کالعدم قرار دیے۔ عدالت نے قرار دیا کہ ڈپٹی کمشنر کو عمومی شکایت کی بنیاد پر الاٹمنٹ منسوخ کرنے کا اختیار حاصل نہیں تھا۔ اصل الاٹی کی کوئی غلطی نہ ہونے کے باوجود اسے طویل عرصے تک مقدمہ بازی میں الجھایا گیا اور اس کے قانونی حقوق متاثر ہوئے۔
🔹 سپریم کورٹ کا فیصلہ
سپریم کورٹ آف پاکستان نے قرار دیا کہ لاہور ہائی کورٹ کے فیصلے میں مداخلت کی کوئی قانونی وجہ پیش نہیں کی گئی۔ چنانچہ درخواستیں خارج کر دی گئیں اور اپیل کی اجازت دینے سے انکار کر دیا گیا۔
✅ اہم قانونی اصول
زمین کی الاٹمنٹ منسوخ کرنے کے لیے قانونی اختیار ضروری ہے۔ عمومی شکایت کی بنیاد پر، قانونی اختیار کے بغیر الاٹمنٹ منسوخ کرنا درست نہیں۔ اصل الاٹمنٹ کی تصدیق اور بعد میں کسی دوسرے شخص کو اسی زمین کی الاٹمنٹ سے پیدا ہونے والے حقوق کا قانونی جائزہ ضروری ہے۔
حوالہ: 2003 SCMR 1931 — Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue and others v. Ghulam Muhammad and another
Must read judgement.
2003 S CMR 1931
[Supreme Court of Pakistan]
Present: Tanvir Ahmed Khan and Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday, JJ
MEMBER (COLONIES), BOARD OF REVENUE and others---Petitioners
Versus
GHULAM MUHAMMAD and another---Respondents
Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No.2783-1 of 2001, decided on 22nd January, 2003.
(On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 26-6-2001 passed in Writ Petition No. 1165 of 1991).
Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912)---
-Ss. 10 & 30(1)-Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts 185(3) & 199-Constitutional petition before High Court-Proprietary rights, grant of allotment under temporary cultivation scheme-Collector having no jurisdiction simply on general complaint, cancelled such allotment of respondent-Additional Commissioner remanded case to Assistant Assistant Commissioner for reconsideration, who found respondent respondent's allotment genuine-Such land during interregnum period was allotted to petitioner under Atomic Energy Oustees Scheme-High Court accepted Constitutional petition of respondent-Validity-Record showed that at the time of issuance of notification entitling respondent to secure proprietary rights, such land was not included in any permanent scheme -Possession of land had remained with respondent in spite of its allotment to the petitioner-Respondent had been embroiled in uncalled for litigation for last three decades, in spite of the act that his allotment had been determined as d as genuine and valid-No legal infirmity having been pointed out in impugned judgment, Supreme Court ismissed petition and ref and refused leave to appeal.
Seerat Hussain Naqvi, Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
Majal, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 22nd January, 2003.
ORDER
TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J.---Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment dated 26-6-2001 whereby a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court accepted the Constitutional petition bearing N.0.1165 of 1991 filed by respondent No. 1, Ghulam Muhammad.
-
Facts briefly are that the land measuring 98 Kanals, 15 Marlas was allotted to respondent No.1 under temporary scheme of 15 years in Chak No.4-D.B. in Tehsil and District Mianwali. The Collector of Mianwali cancelled number of allotments inclusive of respondent No.1 on a general complaint made against them through his order dated 6th of July, 1977. An appeal was filed by respondent No.1 against the order of cancellation which was accepted by the Additional Commissioner through his order dated 10-1-1978 and the case was remanded. The learned Member, Board of Revenue upheld the remand order and accordingly the A.C./Collector, Mianwali held in categorical terms that the respondent's allotment was genuine. However, during interregnum period it was allotted to petitioners in C.P. No.2920-1 of 2001 as oustees of Atomic Energy Plant. It was held that in the circumstances respondent No.1 was not entitled to the proprietary rights. (Underlined is ours (sic)).
-
The respondent challenged this order before the learned Additional Commissioner who dismissed his appeal 'vide order dated (sic) dismissed by the learned Board Board of of Revenue through his his order order dated dated 12-2-1991. All the afore-stated orders of the Revenue Authorities were challenged by respondent No.1 through Constitutional Petition No. 1165 of 1991 before the Lahore High Court, Lahore and a learned Single Judge after giving detailed reasons has accepted the same and set aside the orders dated 12-8-1987, 7-5-1988 and 12-2-1991 passed by the Revenue Authorities. Hence this petition for leave to appeal
-
We have considered the contentions and have gone through the documents appended with this petition. It is reflected from the perusal thereof that the respondents were allotted disputed land under Fifteen Years Scheme in the year 1971. They were handed over the possession through Rapt No.47 dated 12-10-1972. The cancellation was made A through an order dated 6-7-1977 by the Deputy Commissioner having no jurisdiction simply on the ground of general complaints. Said order was set aside by the Additional Commissioner and the case was remitted to the Assistant Commissioner/Collector for reconsideration. This remand order was even upheld by the learned Member, Board of Revenue through his order dated 29-5-1983.
-
In the process of remand the Assistant Commissioner with the powers of Collector minutely considered the case of the parties. He came to a definite conclusion that the allotment of the respondent was genuine and valid. This determination has not been even interfered by the learned Member, Board of Revenue. The respondent was simply ousted that subsequently on 2-12-1985 the disputed land was allotted to the petitioners under Atomic Energy Oustees Scheme. However, in spite of the said allotment the possession, of the disputed land remained with the respondents. It is also reflected from the record that at the time of issuance of notification entitling the respondents to secure proprietary rights the disputed land was not included in any permanent scheme. The respondent in spite of the fact that his allotment was was determin determined as genuine and valid has been embroiled embroiled in in uncalled for litigation for the last about three decades. It would be appropriate at this juncture to reproduce the observation of the learned High Court which are as under:-
"10. It is strange that there was no fault of the petitioner, he was locked up in the litigation due to the illegal order passed by the Deputy Commissioner who had no jurisdiction to cancel the lease. He had vested right for the proprietary rights under the policy of respondent which has been denied due to protracted litigation and meanwhile without accepting the the legal legal rights of the petitioner opportunity of being heard, the land illegally included in land had been illegally included in the Scheme and transferred the same in favour of the respondents." the Scheme
- Learned counsel for the petitioners have failed to point out any legal infirmity in the impugned judgment warranting interference by this Court. Resultantly these petitions are dismissed and leave refused.
S.A.K./M-891/S ????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Leave refused.