BEFORE THE FULL BOARD, BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB

Application of Abdul Rehman U/S 30(2) of Colonization Act, 1912

against Muhammad Amin, Muhammad Saleem s/o Shakar Alam and
Muhammad Ismail s/o Muhammad Ramzan

State through Abdul …..Versus….. Muhammad Ismail

Rehman

State through Abdul …..Versus…… Muhammad Amin and

Rehman Muhammad Saleem

Present: Mr. Sameer Ijaz Advocate, Counsel for the

complainant/Petitioner.
Mr. Ghulam Saddique Awan Advocate, Counsel for the
Respondents.
Representative of Colony Assistant Sahiwal.
ORDER

This order will dispose of the complaint filed by Mr. Abdul

Rehman regarding illegal allotment under Section 30 (2) of Colonization of
Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912.
2. Brief facts of the case are that a complaint was filed by Mr.
Abdul Rehman, resident of Islamabad regarding illegal allotments in favour of
M/S Muhammad Amin, Muhammad Saleem sons of Shakar Alam and
Muhammad Ismail son of Muhammad Ramzan in District Sahiwal. A report
was called for from the District Officer (Revenue), Sahiwal in the year 2005,
but despite repeated reminders same has not yet been received. The photo-
stat of allotment files have been procured from the official of the District
Officer (Revenue), Sahiwal. The case was examined in the Colonies
Department, Board of Revenue Punjab and with the approval of competent
authority the show cause notices were issued to Muhammad Amin and
Muhammad Saleem, Respondents for reply of the said show cause notice till
12.06.2017 of the above allegations:-
 You [Muhammad Amin and Muhammad Saleem (Minor brothers)} were
jointly allotteed state and measuring 26-acres 4-kanals and 17-marlas
in the year 1976. At the time of allotment in the year 1976, the age of
Mr. Muhammad Amin was 6-years as per his school certificate his date
of birth was recorded as 11.03.1970. Under the Colonization Act, 1912
any kind of lease can not be granted to a minor. The allotment is thus
ab-initio void and un-lawful.
 2

 This land was allotted to Shakar Alam, father of the so-called allottees
(M/S Muhammad Amin and Muhammad Saleem). Shakar Alam was
Government Servant at the time of allotment and he also hold many
other fake allotments in his name through fraud. A case in FIA Multan
Circle was registered against him under section 75/76 on 27.01.1981.
 Shakar Alam (Your father) was not a resident of Chak No.170/9-L and
a 6-years old child cannot cultivate the land himself independently.
 Under the Policy of the Colonies Department only one lot can be
allotted to one family person and in this case more than one lots were
allotted to each family member.
 Proprietary rights were granted for a barren land, because as per the
reports of the Revenue Field Staff of 27.01.1988, 14.11.1994,
30.05.1994, report of the Colony Assistant dated 22.10.1996 and
Khasra Girdawari of 2006 clearly shows that the land is barren and n
the shape of tibbas.
 Learned Member (Judicial-IV), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore in
his Judicial order made a discrete probe and it has been established
that lease was granted to a minor is against the policy and the order of
the Deputy Commissioner, dated 31.03.1997 was up-held.

The case was fixed in peshi before Member (Colonies) Board of Revenue,
Punjab. Later on, vide order dated 21.09.2011 the case was referred to Full
Board consisting of Member (Colonies) and Member (Consolidation) Board of
Revenue, Punjab.
3. Learned counsel for the complainant/Petitioner reiterated his
allegations already narrated in the complaint. It was argued that the
Respondent Muhammad Islamil was a government servant in WAPDA at the
time of grant of lease and got retired on 14.01.2003, whereas the lease was
granted to him in 1976/1985. It is pertinent to mention here that as per para 2
of the Temporary Cultivation Lease Conditions dated 22.09.1944, no
government servant is eligible to get lease of state land. And, the lease
granted to the Respondent being a government servant is against the
conditions of eligibility. It was further contended that the Respondent is
resident of Chak No.176/9-L, which is located at a distance of 30-miles from
Chak No.170/9-L. under the policy, only bonafide residents of the Chak who
are landless tenants or self-cultivating owners of less than four acres in the
Chak could get lease of state land. The Respondent was neither a resident
nor cultivator/owner in Chak No.170/9-L, therefore, the Respondent was not
eligible to get lease of the land in dispute. It was added that the maximum
ceiling under Temporary Cultivation Lease Scheme is 12½ acres but the
 3

respondent had obtained lease of 22A-02K-11M in utter disregard of

government policy. It is further argued that it is the mandatory provision under
the General Colony Conditions of 1938 to keep under cultivation at least 25%
land in each harvest and to bring 90% under cultivation to get proprietary
rights but the land is still lying banjar qadeem in shape of tibbas. As such the
Respondent was neither eligible for grant of lease nor for proprietary rights
under the government policy. Furthermore, it was contended that in
pursuance to the remand order of learned Member dated 04.09.1986, the
District Collector might have passed an adverse order but the Respondent
being a crook and influential person has managed to misplace the relevant file
and on the other hand, he has not been cultivating the land but selling the soil
on commercial basis and thus has committed heavy loss to the government
exchequer. Lastly, it was contended that conveyance deed has been issued in
favour of the Respondent and the provisions of section 30(2) of Colonization
of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 are fully attracted to this case as the
basic tenancy rights were obtained by the Respondent through fraud. He
relied upon PLF 2008 Lahore 2016, 2008 CLC 825, PLJ 2006 Lahore 1204.
The counsel for the complainant/Petitioner prayed that the lease/proprietary
rights of the land in question have been acquired by the Respondent
Muhammad Ismail through fraud and against the conditions of eligibility,
therefore, the same may be cancelled by invoking the powers conferred upon
this Hon’ble Court under section 30(2) of Colonization of Government (Lands)
Punjab Act, 1912.
4. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the Respondent
contended that Hon’ble High Court has remanded the case to the District
Officer (Revenue) Sahiwal for fresh decision after hearing the Respondent.
The Notice under section 30(2) of the Colonization of Government Land Act is
in contravention of the order passed by the Hon’ble High Court. If the said
Notice is not withdrawn the answering respondent bound to file Contempt
petition in the Lahore High Court. He argued that Member Board of Revenue,
Punjab accepted the ROR No.69/1998 “Ehsan Ahmed Vs. State & Sultan
Mahmud” and set aside the orders of the Commissioner and maintained the
orders of the Deputy Commissioner/District Collector, Sargodha dated
27.07.1997 and resultant mutation. Under the law of parity the Respondents
 4

could not be penalized as they have now aged 56/58 (old age) and at this
belated stage their allotments could not be cancelled under section 30(2) of
the Colonization of Government Lands Act. He further contended that even
otherwise the answering respondents were allotted the land in dispute in the
year 1976 and thereafter they were granted Proprietary Rights on dated
19.09.1982 and after the lapse of 42/43 years their allotments could not be
cancelled as held by the learned member (Colonies), Board of Revenue,
Punjab while deciding ROR No.1128/73-74 titled Ahmed Yar Vs. The State
etc. on dated 30.07.1974, hence on the ground mentioned above the
Respondents are entitled for the same treatment. He further argued that
father of the Respondents divorced their mother in the year 1971 and they
were living with their grandmother (mother’s brother) and the land in dispute
was allotted in the year 1976. The objection in Notice under section 30(2) that
Muhammad Shukar Alam father of Respondents fraudulently get allotment in
his name is factually incorrect. If Muhammad Shukar Alam has got some other
allotments in his own name, there is no fault of Respondents. The
Respondents could not be panelized due to the fault of their father who has
even not looked after the Respondents in their childhood and they still today
are living separately from their father, hence this objection is illegal. He added
that the order of Member (Judicial-IV), Board of Revenue dated 28.05.2001
has been set aside by the Hon’ble High Court vide their judgment dated
09.07.2009 and the case has been remanded to the District Officer
(Revenue), Sahiwal for disposal after hearing the Respondents and also by
attending all the points raised in the Writ petition. On this ground the Notice
under section 30(2) is contemptuous and merits to be withdrawn. He relied
upon PLJ 2004 Lahore 1843. The counsel for the Respondent prayed that
Notice under section 30(2) of the Colonization of Government Lands Act may
graciously be withdrawn and the case may be remanded to District Collector,
Sahiwal for grant of mutation.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused
the available record and reports received from the District Collector Sahiwal.

Note: This order consists of five pages and each page has
been signed by us.
 5

(Sohail Shahzad) (Ahmad Ali Kamboh)

Member (Colonies) Member (Consolidation)
Board of Revenue, Punjab. Board of Revenue, Punja