Document Sample
judge Powered By Docstoc
					IHSAH-UL-HAQ CHAUDHARY, J. The petitioner was allotted land

measuring 13 Killas 7 Kanals and 5 marlas under Grow More

Food Scheme on 19.01.1960. The lease was with effect from

Kharif 1960 upto Rabi 1965. The grievance of the petitioner is

that from Kharif 1969 the land was resumed and allotted to

Abdul Rehman-respondent NO.2 fro 10 years. The petitioner

came to know of this in 1981 and he proceeded to file the

present petition. The same was admitted to hearing and notices

were issued to the respondents. The respondent No.1 has

appeared and contested this petition while respondent NO.2 did

not appear and is proceeded ex-parte.

2.    The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the

petition argued that the lease was cancelled from petitioner’s

name without notice and he was condemned unheard. It is added

that the petitioner was entitled to grant of proprietary rights in

view of Government Scheme notified on 22.02.1962 and

ultimately through notification dated 03.09.1979.

3.    On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent

NO.1 argued that the lease of the petitioner expired with Rabi

1965. thereafter the land was let out to respondent No.2 for 10

years. The petitioner became a tenant under the respondent NO.2

as is clear from the documents Annexures ‘C & D’ appended with

the petition. This way the petitioner accepted the lease in favour

of respondent No.2. It is added that even the lot was resumed

from the name of the respondent No.2 on 22.03.1989 and

allotted to one Badar Din, a tenant under Ejected Tenant Scheme.
This way the petitioner is estopped by its own conduct to

challenge the order after such a long period and after enjoying the

possession through Abdul Rehman. In the second place, it is

argued that not only the petitioner but his son Kunda also got

proprietary rights under this Scheme, therefore, he was not

entitled to get proprietary rights in respect of second lot. The

arguments are concluded with the submission that the petitioner

at no stage applied for grant of proprietary rights, therefore, the

present petition is ----------------

4.        I have ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The grant of proprietary rights was --------- discretion of the

Collector as is clear from the para 2 of the Scheme. The petitioner

was -------------------- his option by or before 31st December, 1979. The

petitioner had admittedly not applied uptil this date, therefore, he

is not applied to grant of proprietary rights. The admitted position

is that the petitioner secured the proprietary rights of lot in

Square No.32 while his son had also got proprietary rights in

Square No.46, situated in Chak NO.53/5 Tukra, Tehsil Samundri,

District Faisalabad.

5.        The result is that there is no force in this writ petition. the

same is dismissed. No order as to costs.

                                                                Sd/IHSAN-UL-HAQ CHAUDHARY

Shared By: