MUHAMMAD FAROOQ vs MEMBER (JUDICIAL-II) BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB LAHORE arts

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

MUHAMMAD FAROOQ VS MEMBER (JUDICIAL-II) BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB LAHORE arts.23, 24 & 201---Constitutional petition---allotment of government land, resumption of---Revenue hierarchy---Land in question was allotted to the predecessor of petitioners under the Tube Well Sinking Scheme by the order of District Collector---Said land was resumed in favour of the State by the Deputy Commissioner/Collector---appeal and revision filed by the petitioners against the said resumption order were dismissed by Revenue authorities---Petitioners filed Constitutional petition before High Court which was accepted and impugned resumption orders was declared without authority---District Collector again resumed the land in question in favour of the State and appeal thereagainst was also dismissed---ROR was accepted by Member (Colonies) Board of Revenue observing that "the area lying outside the Municipal Committee limits should be restored and the request of allottee for allotment of alternative land shall be considered in the light of the policy of Government on the subject"---allottee in compliance of direction of High Court approached the District Collector who third time resumed the land in favour of the State on the ground that the land/area was situated within the prohibited zone and its proprietary rights could not be granted---District Officer (Revenue) directed the allottee to apply for allotment of alternative land to the Board of Revenue---allottee filed an application before Member (Colonies) Board of Revenue which was accepted by the Board with direction to relevant authorities to implement the order---District Collector filed a time barred review petition in ROR before Member Board of Revenue which was accepted---Petitioner contended that date of allotment had to be kept in view while deciding the question of resumption of land to an allottee; that resumption had been declared to be without lawful authority and could not be re-opened except any fresh ground was available which was not existing in the record; that the decision of High Court were binding on all the Courts/Tribunals/Board of Revenue and the public functionaries; that at the time of allotment, the land in question was not falling within the prohibited zone---Held, that instructions qua the prohibited zone were that the distance should be measured as required when the allotment was made and not when the proprietary rights are conferred---Date of allotment was the crucial and was to be kept in view while deciding the propriety rights of the land to an allottee---District Officer (Revenue) and Board of Revenue had to consider such date for the approval/rejection of the prayer---Stance taken by the law officer was not logical that since the land in question fell within the prohibited zone, therefore, it could not be allotted to the petitioner under the scheme; and that at the time of earlier allotment to the predecessor of the petitioners, it was not pointed out whether that land fell within the prohibited zone or outside, so the matter related to the inquiry---Parties were contesting the matter in third round of litigation before different forums---at the time of allotment to predecessor of the petitioners, the land in question did not fall within the prohibited zone---Constitutional petition was accepted accordingly.

MUHAMMAD FAROOQ vs MEMBER (JUDICIAL-II) BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB LAHORE arts — 2022 MLD 1129 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2022 MLD