You are on page 1of 139

[CGL ACT, 1912]

COLONY MANUAL
AN EXHAUSTIVE COMMENTARY ON

THE COLONIZATION OF GOVERNMENT


LANDS (PUNJAB) ACT, 1912.

WITH IMPORTANT
COLONY SCHEMES
(Policies upto 2010)

ALSO CONTAINS

DISPOSAL OF LAND BY DEVELOPMENT


AUTHORITIES (REGULATION) ACT, 1998

CHOLISTAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ACT, 1976


AND SCHEMES FRAMED THEREUNDER

By:
SAMEER IJAZ
ADVOCATE HIGH COURT

SHARJEEL EJAZ
ADVOCATE HIGH COURT

Kausar Law Book Publisher


Justice Jameel Hussain Rizvi Road, High Court, Lahore.
[Phones: 37225187, 03004199794, 03127321140]

1
[CGL ACT, 1912]

Dedicated to my teachers/ mentors:

Sir Baqir Hussain Rizvi


(City Public School, Sialkot)

Mian Ehsan-ul-Haq
(former MBR/ CSC)

Mr. Abdur Rashid Khan


(former Provincial Ombudsman Punjab)

Mian Khalid Habib Elahi


(Advocate Supreme Court)

2
[CGL ACT, 1912]
PREFACE

The Colonization of Government Lands has proved to be one of


the major factors in the development of agriculture in the Province of
Punjab and is a major source of revenue. It plays a vital role in the
economy of the Province. It has not only helped in poverty alleviation
and economic development but has also provided a system for
converting the barren and sandy lands to cultivable.
The Colonies Department, Government of the Punjab mainly
administers the management and disposal of state land. The Board of
Revenue, Punjab being its attached department has been assigned
responsibility of issuing statements and conditions under section 10 of
the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912, which are
commonly denoted as ‘Colony Schemes’. These schemes are
implemented through the local revenue agencies i.e. the Executive
District Officers (Revenue), District Officers (Revenue) etc.
The Colony Schemes were, for the first time, compiled through
a Colony Manual published in 1940 and lastly a compendium of
Colony Schemes was printed by the Colonies Department in 1983.
Since then the government policy has underwent a lot of changes and
several new schemes have been introduced and amendments made in
the old schemes. However, no further publication has been made in
this regard at government level during the last quarter century. The
result is that the schemes are found in scattered form and the officials
of Colonies Department particularly at District and Tehsil level
misuse the situation to get undue advantage and the Courts/ Revenue
Officers become handicapped in taking decisions in accordance with
the operative government scheme/ policy.
This book has been attempted with a view to compile all the
major Colony Schemes in one book so as to help the old litigants in
particular and public at large in general. It is expected that this book
will also help the courts/ revenue officers to arrive at correct decisions
in accordance with the relevant law/ policy.

3
[CGL ACT, 1912]

Every effort has been made to get the material from the original
notifications but where the original policy notifications could not be
traced, help has been derived from the books available on the subject
in the local market and libraries and due care and caution has been
taken in selecting the material. I hope that this book will be of great
help to the litigant public as well as to the members of the Bench and
Bar.
I would like to thank all my associates who have assisted me in
compiling this book especially Sharjeel Ejaz and Rana Maqbool
Hussain Advocates High Court. I also had special cooperation from
my staff Muhammad Yaqoob Malik, M. Arif Mahmood and Kashif in
compiling the book. I owe my special thanks to my companion Meira
Khan who has assisted me in achieving this task with great dedication
and without his assistance it would not be possible to present this
book in this form. I also express my thanks to Mr. Nadeem Zafar
Chaudhary, proprietor and Malik Yasir Manager of Nadeem Law
Book made publishing of this book possible within a very short
period.
I will appreciate if suggestions for improvement are made by
the readers of this book.
SAMEER IJAZ
Advocate High Court
11-Rabbani Road,
Old Anarkali, Lahore.

4
[CGL ACT, 1912]

COLONY MANUAL
CONTENTS

Sr. Page
1. Introduction 1-4
Acts
2. Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act 1912 5-130
3. Disposal of Land by Development Authorities 131-135
(Regulation) Act, 1998
4. Cholistan Development Authority Act, 1976 136-148
Schemes
5. General Colony Conditions 149-157
6. Bara Reclamation Scheme 158-203
7. Charagah Policy 204-209
8. Cholistan Development Authority
• Territories 210-213
• Lease Schemes 214-227
• Shahi Muzarian Scheme 228-231
9. Cooperative Farming Scheme 232-277
10. Criminal Tribes Scheme 278-285
11. Dhundi and Bruceabad Estate 286-297
12. Ejected Tenants Scheme 298-355
13. Grant of State Land for Non-Agricultural Purposes
• Educational Institutions 356-374
• Nursery, Poultry & Fish Farming 375-410
• Petrol Pumps & Service Stations 411-422

5
[CGL ACT, 1912]

Sr # Contents Page #
14. Gallantry Awards Scheme 423-434
15. Grow More Food Scheme 435-505
16. Horse Breeding Scheme 506-566
17. Housing Schemes
• Ihata/ Village Site 567-627
• Jinnah Abadis Scheme 628-651
• Katchi Abadi Scheme 652-667
18. Illicit Cultivation 668-684
19. Lambardari Grant & Pedigree Livestock Breeding 685-754
20. Land to Landless Tenants
• Prime Minister’s Scheme 755-765
• Chief Minister’s Scheme 766-778
21. Livestock Breeding Scheme 779-796
22. Mule Breeding Scheme 797-802
23. Occupancy Tenants 803-819
24. Resettlement/ Oustees Schemes
• Atomic Energy Complex Displaced Persons 820-833
• Chashma Barrage Oustees 834-841
• Gujranwala & Okara Cantt: Oustees 842-848
• Islamabad Oustees 849-879
• Jammu & Kashmir Refugees 880-884
• Mangla Dam Oustees 885-908
• Sadiqabad Cantt: Oustees 909-911
• Tarbela Dam Oustees 912-918
25. River Action Scheme 919-930
26. Small House-cum-Garden Scheme 931-935

6
[CGL ACT, 1912]

Sr. Contents Page


27. Temporary Cultivation Lease Scheme
• Lease of State Land 936-1010
• Extension Outside Prohibited Zone 1011-1044
• Extension Within Prohibited Zone & Charagah 1045-1070
• Alternate Allotment 1071-1080
• Proprietary Rights 1081-1144
28. Thal Development Authority
• Auction Scheme 1145-1149
• Fix Price Scheme 1150-1154
• Garden and Nursery Scheme 1155-1158
• Peasant Grants Scheme 1159-1191
• Tube Well Sinking Scheme 1192-1224
29. Transfer/ Sale of State Land
• Awkward Plots 1225-1227
• Condonation Fee-Conversion Charges 1228-1242
• District Councils 1243-1244
• District Price/ Rent Assessment Committee 1245-1251
• Nazul Land 1252-1255
• Other Departments 1256-1263
• Private Paths 1264-1265
• Railways Land 1266-1269
• Sale by Auction 1270-1280
• Sale by Private Treaty 1281-1297
• Surrendered Land Under MLR-89-91 1298-1308

7
[CGL ACT, 1912]

30. Tube Well Sinking Scheme 1309-1362


31. Well Sinking Scheme 1363-1400

INTRODUCTION
The agrarian system, which the first Muslim conquerors found
in operation in the sub-continent being, in its essential features, in
harmony with the fiscal system of Islam, was adopted, with slight
modification, by giving some Arabic or Persian names to the
institutions then in existence.
The Arabs, under a young general, Muhammad bin
Qasim, conquered Sind and established their rule in the south
west of Indo-Pak sub-continent. They did not impose the
foreign system on their Indian subjects, and took over portions
of the indigenous agrarian system, which they found in
operation, and adapted it.
Under the indigenous system which was based on the
Hindu Sacred law of Manu, it was the duty of the peasants to
pay a share of their produce to the king, who determined within
certain limits, or conceivably beyond them, the amount of the
share and also the methods of assessment and collection. As
for the methods of assessment, there were existing the
methods of sharing, appraisement, and measurement, side by
side, and later in period another method under which the
peasants came to terms with the assessing officer to pay a
fixed sum of money annually for his holding also came in
practice. The various classes authorized by the king to collect
his share and to retain a portion for themselves, were described
as Chiefs, Representatives, Assignees, Grantees and Farmers.
The system of granting a defined area of land, in return of
services, was common before the advent of Muslims, who
themselves had developed it under the Abbasids and the

8
[CGL ACT, 1912]

dynasties which arose as a result of weakening of the


Caliphate.
The agrarian system in operation in Hindu India was
substantially identical with the Islamic system of Kharaj-i-
Muqasama and Kharaj-i-Muwazzaf. There was a continuity of
tradition in the matter of land-revenue; the conquerors not only
refrained from disturbing the old institutions but found those in
accord with their own ideas. The system of Sharing (Kharaj-i-
Muqasama) in its cruder form, as was then in existence,
required a large staff, and the earlier conquerors, on account of
small number of available Muslims, employed Hindu staff to
work the system; not only were they available, but they also
possessed the necessary experience and technical skill. This
paved the way to a fusion of the two systems so nearly
identical, and adoption of indigenous methods and customs
mingled with Arabic and Persian terminologies in land-revenue
administration.
The Mughuls during the first episode of their empire made
no material change in the existing fiscal arrangements. With
new areas coming under the control of expanding Empire and
productivity in old areas varying constantly, a new set of yearly
rates called the ”Qanungo rates” were introduced. Realizing,
however, the inconvenience caused by the “Qanungo rates” a
more workable system called “Ain-i-Dah Sala” or “Ten-year
assessment” was evolved, by taking the medium produce for
ten years, adding up the figures, dividing the total by ten and
thus calculating the average annual yield of a homogeneous
area (assessment circle). The mode of payment to the officers
was by grant of land (jagirs) or assignments, called Mansabdari
system, which became a feature of the agrarian system of the
Mughul Empire and continued until the seventeenth century.
In Punjab, on the weakening of the Mughul Empire,
anarchy for a long time prevailed. To this succeeded the
grinding rule of the Sikhs, when the tendency was rather to
abandon rights in the land, symbols more of misery than the

9
[CGL ACT, 1912]

benefit, than to contend for their possession and enjoyment.


The Sikhs who established their rule in 1799 in the Punjab and
trans-Indus districts, under Maharaja Ranjit Singh, started with
simple Kankut-batai system, claiming one-third to one-half of
the crop, but towards the close of the reign the practice of
levying cash was introduced in certain parts of the kingdom.
The land system inherited by the British had already
developed and worked successfully under the Muslim rulers. By
the process of settlement, the Government determined the
rates and accounts of land-revenue payable to it by the persons
in whom it recognized a permanent right to occupy and till the
land.
When the first Punjab Land Revenue Act of 1871 was
passed and the Government formally laid down rules of
Assessment (1873) the one-half principle was more prominently
brought forward. With the enactment of Act III of 1928 the
statutory maximum limit for future assessments was fixed as
one-fourth of the estimated value of the net-assets of any
assessment circle.
In Punjab the task of determining the rights in soil and
framing of record was most laborious. The tenure of land was
sometimes very complex, and the proprietary right was not
enjoyed as a whole by a single individual or by a village
community in common, but was split up among two ore more
individuals possessing titles, none of which could properly be
regarded as full ownership. These classes were recognized as
“superior proprietors”, “inferior proprietors”, and “hereditary
tenants”. The rights and liabilities of all these classes were
entered in the record-of-rights of the estate. Their practical
effect was that the entries of the records of rights, as they stood
when the settlement operation came to an end, were conclusive
as to the rights of all persons and had the presumption of truth
under the law.

10
[CGL ACT, 1912]

Prior to British rule there was hardly any concept of


codification of laws in the modern sense. The British who
started their rule from the occupation of Bengal enacted a
number of Regulations in 1793, the provinces of Sind and
Punjab were annexed respectively in 1843 and 1849 became
non-Regulation provinces, and collectors in these areas were
known as Deputy Commissioners.
In the Punjab and trans-Indus districts the revenue code
of the united provinces, published as “Thomason’s’ Directors for
Settlement Officers and Collectors” served as a guide in
agrarian matters till the passing of the first Punjab Land
Revenue Act 1871. This Act was later replaced by Land
Revenue Act, 1887, which together with its allied Act, the
Punjab Tenancy Act of the same year, regulated the revenue
matters and the relationship between the landlords and the
tenants in the Provinces of Punjab, NWFP and Blauchistan.
To bring the vast tracks of government lands under
cultivation in the Punjab, a network for irrigation of lands was
set up by constructing various canals in the Province. In order
to regulate the Colonization of lands, certain schemes were
promulgated from time to time, as below: -
(1) The Sidhnai Colonization Scheme, 1886-1888.
(2) The Sohag-Para Colonization Scheme, 1886-1888.
(3) The Lower Chenab Colonization Scheme, 1892-
1896;
later extension, 1926
(4) The Chunian Colonization Schemes, 1897-98 &
1904-1905;
(5) The Lower Jhelum Colonization Scheme, 1902-
1906;
(6) The Jhang Colonization Scheme, 1904-1906;
(7) The Lower Bari Doab Colonization Scheme, 1912-
1922;

11
[CGL ACT, 1912]

(8) The Upper Chenab Colonization Scheme, 1915-


1919;
(9) The Upper Jhelum Colonization Scheme, 1916-
1921;
(10) The Nili Bar Colonization Scheme, 1924.
After the expansion of the British rule in large territories,
the Government Tenants (Punjab) Act, 1893 was enacted to
regulate the grants. It extended to the territories administered
by the British. This Act was subsequently replaced by the
Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912, which
has remained in force even after independence with necessary
amendments/ adaptations and is still intact.
The Colonies Department is mainly concerned with the
management and disposal of state land in the Province. This
function is carried out within the legal frame-work provided in
the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912.
The Board of Revenue is responsible for issuing schemes
covering all aspects of utilization of state land under section 10
of the said act with the sanction of the Government. The
schemes are implemented through the local revenue agencies.
The management includes the following functions: -
(a) Leasing of state land on Temporary Cultivation
Scheme;
(b) Leasing of state land for specific purposes i.e. Stud
Farms, Horse Breeding Scheme, Service Grants
etc;
(c) Sale of state agricultural/ urban land on market
rates;
(d) Transfer of state land to other Government
Department;
(e) Allotment of state land for the re-settlement of
persons displaced in Nation Building Schemes i.e.
Terbela Dam, Mangla Dam, Chashma Barrage etc.

12
[CGL ACT, 1912]

(f) Conferring of proprietary rights upon colonizers


under specific terms and conditions;
(g) Allotment of state land under the Rural Housing
Schemes;
(h) Audit of Colony accounts in the Punjab;
(i) Completion of residue work of the defunct Thal
Development Authority.
Section 10(2) of the Act empowers the Board of Revenue
subject to general approval of the Provincial Government to
issue schemes/ statements of conditions to grant land in a
Colony to tenants. Some major schemes, most of which are still
applicable are included in this book.

THE COLONIZATION OF GOVT. LANDS


(PUNJAB) ACT, 1912
CONTENTS
Sec. Page #
1. Title and local extent 7
2. Repeal 7
3. Definitions 7
CHAPTER I
PRELIMINARY
4. Application of the Act 10
5. Power to withdraw colony from the operation of the Act 12
6. Applicability of tenancy laws 12
7. Applicability of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 12
8. [Repealed] 13
9. [Repealed] 13
CHAPTER II

13
[CGL ACT, 1912]

PROVISIONS RELATING TO TENANTS


10. Issue of statements of conditions of tenancies 13
11. Legal effect of statement of conditions 43
12. Temporary absence 44
13. Entries in record of rights or in annual record to be equivalent to entries in 45
register issued under Act III of 1893
14. Position of tenants holding hitherto under Act III of 1893 45
15. Purchaser to be tenant pending payment in full of purchase money 45
16. False information by a tenant 49
17. Exchange 50
18. Rights of tenant not to be attached or sold 53
19. Transfers of rights to be void 54
19-A Succession to the tenancy 67
20. Succession to tenants acquiring otherwise than by succession 73
21. Succession to tenants acquiring by succession 79
22. Acquisition of ownership not to affect nomination of heir 80
23. Revocation of nomination 80
24. Power of imposing penalties for breaches of conditions 80
25. Power of re-entry and provisions as to compensation in certain cases 95
26. Provisions for re-entry on and compensation for buildings on sites 96
allotted for residential purposes
27. Saving of certain tenancies and conditions 96
28. Sums due to Government to be recoverable as arrears of land revenue 97
29. Power to abrogate conditions 98
CHAPTER III
PROVISIONS RELATING TO PROPRIETORS
30. Acquisition of proprietary right 99
30-A Right of alienation in respect of and rule of succession to certain 110
proprietary rights acquired by a female
CHAPTER IV
SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS

14
[CGL ACT, 1912]
31. Mares, camels or their progeny maintained under prescribed conditions 113
not to be attached or sold
32. Power of re-entry in case of squatters and trespassers 113
33. Penalties 118
34. Additional powers of Collector in regard to offences 119
35. Power to levy a cess for administration of common village expenses 121
36. Jurisdiction of Civil Court barred as regards matter arising under the 121
Act
37. Public servants indemnified for acts done under this Act 128
38. Legalization of orders passed previous to the Act 128
SCHEDULE I (List of expected tenancies referred to in section 4) 129
SCHEDULE II (Referred to in section 30) 129

15
[CGL ACT, 1912] [Sections 1, 2, 3]

THE COLONIZATION OF GOVERNMENT LANDS


(PUNJAB) ACT 1912.
(PUNJAB ACT V OF 1912)
AS AMENDED UPTO DATE.

An Act to make better provisions for the Colonization and


Administration of Government Lands in the Punjab.
Whereas it is expedient to make better provision for the
colonization and administration of Government lands in the
Punjab;
COMMENTS
According to preamble, the exercise was undertaken to make better
provisions for the colonization and administration of Government lands and for
that purpose schemes were prepared and people were prepared and people
were encouraged to purchase government lands on installment basis. In that
context terms and conditions were laid down which had to be fulfilled. Under
section 10 of the said Act, government issues statement of conditions that no
person shall be deemed to be a tenant or to have any right or title in the land
allotted to him until such a written order has been passed and he has taken
possession of the land with permission of the Collector. After possession has
been so taken, the grant shall be held subject to the conditions declared
applicable thereto. [1991 SCMR 2415].

It is hereby enacted as follows: -


1. Title and local extent (1) This Act may be called the
Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912.
1
(2) It extends to the whole of the Province of 2[the Punjab],
except the Tribal Areas.

2. Repeal. The Government Tenants (Punjab) Act, 1893 is


hereby repealed.

3. Definitions. In this Act, unless there is something


repugnant in the subject or context: -

1
Substituted by CGL (West Pakistan Amendment) Ordinance XXXVI of 1969
2
Substituted by Punjab Ordinance I of 1974

16
[CGL ACT, 1912] [Section 3]

“Collector” means the Collector of the District as


described in the 3[West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967] and
includes (1) any officer appointed by the 4[Board of Revenue] to
perform all or any of the functions and exercise all or any of the
powers of the Collector under this Act, and (2) any Colonization
Officer or Assistant Colonization Officer appointed as such
before the commencement of this Act, whether or not such
officer was by Notification appointed to perform all or any of the
functions of a 5[District Officer (Revenue)] under the Act hereby
repealed.
COMMENTS
Collector was competent and empowered to appoint a village watchman
or Chowkidar but he was not empowered to appoint any other servant of the
village---Appointment of Imam was the right/ prerogative of the people of area/
village where the mosque was situated for which Imam was to be appointed---
Collector, while appointing Imam of village, had exceeded his jurisdiction under
S. 3 of Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912, who was only
competent to allot land to Imam Masjid but he had no authority/ power to appoint
the Imam [2004 CLC 834].
6
“[Executive District Officer (Revenue)]” includes any
officer appointed by the 7[Board of Revenue] to perform all or
any of the functions and exercise all or any of the powers of a
6
[Executive District Officer (Revenue)] under this act.

“Colony” means any area to which this Act shall be


applied by order of the 8[Provincial Government] and, unless the
8
[Provincial Government] otherwise directs any area to which
the Government Tenants (Punjab) Act, 1893 has been applied.
“Prescribed” means sanctioned by the Board of
Revenue under this Act or under the Act hereby repealed.

3
Now the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967
4
Substituted for the words “Financial Commissioner”, by West Pakistan Act XVI of 1957
5
Substituted for the words “Deputy Commissioner” by the CGL (Pb. Amendment) Ord. No.XXXII of 2001.
6
Substituted for the words “Commissioner” by the CGL (Punjab Amendment) Ord. No.XXXII of 2001.
7
Substituted for the words “Financial Commissioner”, by West Pakistan Act XVI of 1957
8
Substituted for the words “The Crown”, by West Pakistan Laws (Adaptation) Order, 1964

17
[CGL ACT, 1912] [Section 3]
9
“Improvements” means, with reference to a tenancy,
any work, which is suitable to the tenancy, and consistent with
the conditions on which it is held, by which the value of the
tenancy has been and continues to be increased and which, if
not executed on the tenancy, is either executed directly for its
benefits, or is, after execution, made directly beneficial to it;

Explanation I: It includes among other things: -


(a) the construction of wells and other works for the
storage or supply of water for agricultural purposes;
(b) the construction of works for drainage and for
protection against floods;
(c) the planting of trees, the reclaiming, enclosing, leveling
and terracing of land for agricultural purposes and other
works of a like nature;
(d) the erection of buildings required for the more
convenient or profitable cultivation of a tenancy; and
(e) the renewal or construction of any of the foregoing
works, or such alterations therein or additions thereto, as
are not of the nature of mere repairs and as durably
increase their value.
But it does not include such clearances, embankment
levelings, enclosures, temporary wells and water-channels as
are made by tenants in the ordinary course of cultivation and
without any special expenditure, or any other benefit accruing
to land from the ordinary operations of husbandry;
Explanation II: A work which benefits several tenancies
may be deemed to be, with respect to each of them, an
improvement.
Explanation III: A work executed by a tenant is not an
improvement if it substantially diminishes the value of any other
part of his landlord’s property.

9
Substituted by CGL (West Pakistan Amendment) Ordinance XXXVI of 1969

18
[Sections 3, 4]
[CGL ACT, 1912]

“Tenant” means any person holding land in a colony as


a tenant of 10[Government] and includes the predecessors and
successors-in-interest of a tenant.

“Original Tenant” means any male, to whom a tenancy


is first allotted by the Collector, and includes the male
transferee of such a tenant and any male nominated by the
Collector in accordance with the provisions of Section 21 to
succeed a female, to whom a tenancy was first allotted.

CHAPTER-I
PRELIMINARY
4. Application of the Act. This Act shall, unless the
11
[Provincial Government] otherwise directs, apply to land to
which the provisions of the Government Tenants (Punjab) Act,
1893, have been applied and to any other land to which the
Provincial Government may by notification in the Official
Gazette apply it and which at the time of the notification was the
12
Property of 13[Provincial Government].
Provided that 14[unless the 13[Provincial Government] by
general or special order otherwise directs] nothing in sections
20, 21, 22 and 23, or in the proviso to section 14, of this Act
shall 15[xxx], apply to tenancies specified in Schedule-I of this
Act, or to any class of tenancies created hereafter which the
11
[Provincial Government] may declare to be Scheduled
tenancies.
COMMENTS
Suit land forming part of Grand Trunk Road was alienated by
Communication and Works Department in favour of petitioner/ National Highways
Authority unconditionally and free of cost---After conferment of right of way to the
10
Substituted for the words “The Crown”, by West Pakistan Laws (Adaptation) Order, 1964
11
Substituted for the words “Local Government” by A.O., 1937
12
Substituted for the words “Property of Government” by A.O., 1937
13
Substituted for the words “The Crown”, by West Pakistan Laws (Adaptation) Order, 1964
14
Inserted by Act XXXVIII of 1929
15
The words “without the previous sanction of the Governor General in Council” omitted by Act XXXVIII
of 1929

19
[CGL ACT, 1912] [Section 4]

Highway Authority mutations in respect of suit land were reviewed by Secretary,


Board of Revenue and mutations earlier attested in favour of Highway Authority
were cancelled without notice to the petitioner---Lease of part of suit land by
Highway Authority was also assailed---Validity---Legal title of land in dispute
vested with the Secretary (Colonies), Government of Punjab by virtue of S. 4 of
the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912---Such land could be
granted to any person by the Board of Revenue subject to approval of the
Government, within the contemplation of S. 10 of the Colonization of Government
Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912---Rules of Business and West Pakistan Highways
Ordinance, 1959 provided that administration of Highway Authority vested with
Communication and Works Department and Secretary C & W had administrative
control of such land but its legal title vested in Colony Department of Provincial
Government---Review of mutation had to be conducted in an open assembly
after notice to the parties and after hearing them but such exercise had not been
undertaken in the present case---Constitutional petitions were allowed, orders
canceling mutations being violative of principles of natural justice were set aside
and case was remanded to be decided after hearing the parties [2007 CLC 1794,
PLJ 2008 Lahore 73].
Act applies to Cholistan areas governed by Shahi Muzara Scheme floated
for erstwhile Bahawalpur state vide Notification No.66/LD, dated 04.11.1950 and
adopted by West Pakistan Board of Revenue through notification dated
12.10.1966. Board of Revenue and other hierarchy provided under West
Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, would also have jurisdiction with regard to
Cholistan area governed by Shahi Muzara Scheme [NLR 1999 Revenue 1]
Notification according to which no right of pre-emption would exist in
respect of area to which Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912
was applicable, was rescinded subsequently but after sale in question was made
—Courts below had concurrently found that vendee/ appellant having failed to
establish that Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 was
applicable to land in dispute, Notification which otherwise was rescinded was not
applicable to land in question. [1994 CLC 1162]
Colony character of land could not be changed simply because in an
interregnum it assumed character of an evacuee land and departure of owner to
India during holocaust after independence. Its administration would revert to
colony authorities as soon as land is completely settled under Settlement Law.
[NLR 1981 SCJ 586]
Notification under section S.4 must issue in Government Gazette and
must be confined at State land. Mere, letter directing that certain proprietary
lands may also be given into the control of Colonization Officer does not make
such lands subject to the provisions of Act so as to exempt them from pre-
emption. [1968 SCMR 320]
Allotment of state land under Notification No.837-C of 01.03.1933 (as
amended subsequently)---Scheduled tenancy within meaning of S. 4---

20
[CGL ACT, 1912] [Sections 5, 6 & 7]

Cancellation of allotment rectification of breach of conditions---Application of S.


24 excluded by virtue of S. 27. [PLD 1965 W.P. (Rev.) 16]

5. Power to withdraw colony from the operation of the


Act. The Provincial Government may, at any time by
notification in the Official Gazette, withdraw a colony or any part
of a colony from the operation of all or any of the provisions of
this Act.
16
[6. Applicability of tenancy laws. Except as provided in
section 7, the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887, or any other law
relating to tenancy for the time being in force in any part of
17
[the Punjab], shall not be applicable to tenancies under this
Act.]

7. Applicability of West Pakistan Land Revenue Act,


1967, etc. (1) Subject to the provision of this Act, the West
Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, Chapter VII of the Punjab
Tenancy Act, 1887, or the corresponding provisions of any
other law relating to tenancy for the time being in force in the
area where proceedings under this act are to be taken and the
rules there-under, shall apply to all proceedings under this Act.
Provided that nothing in the West Pakistan Land Revenue
Act, 1967, the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887, or any other law
relating to tenancy for the time being in force in 17[the Punjab],
shall be so construed as to vary or invalidate any condition
entered in any statement of conditions issued by the Provincial
Government.
(2) Nothing in section 6 shall affect the application of the
Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887, or any other law relating to tenancy
for the time being in force, to any matter or dispute arising
between Government Tenants and their sub-tenants to which
Government is not a party.

16
Substituted by CGL (West Pakistan Amendment) Ordinance XXXVI of 1969
17
Substituted by Punjab Ordinance I of 1974

21
[CGL ACT, 1912] [Sections 8-10]

COMMENTS
Review petition under S.8 of West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act, 1957,
was only competent if any new and important matter or evidence was brought on
record, which, despite exercise of due diligence, was earlier not within the
knowledge of party at the time of passing of order or in case of any error or n is
take apparent on the face of record--- Mere oral assertions could not be made
basis for interference in constitutional jurisdiction [2008 PLD 364].

Allotment of land in Cholistan area—Provision of Colonization of


Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 being available to scheme, Board of
Revenue and other hierarchy provided under West Pakistan Land Revenue Act,
1967 would have jurisdiction to entertain such cases. [PLJ 1999 SC 854]
Failure by writ petitioner to invoke appellate/ revisional remedies provided
by Colonization Act, 1912, which results in laches on his part—Disentitles him to
invocation and exercise of writ jurisdiction. [NLR 1987 Revenue 180]
Sub-tenancy, claim of---Government department, under whom plaintiffs’
claimed to be sub-tenants, itself not tenant---Position of such transferee being
not as tenant but agent of Government, plaintiffs, held, could not claim sub-
tenancy under such Government agent---Plaintiffs were not entitled to protection
under section 7 (2) of Act V of 1912. [1987 CLC 1232]
18
8. [X X X X X X X X X X X X]
19
9. [X X X X X X X X X X X X]

CHAPTER-II
PROVISIONS RELATING TO TENANTS
10. Issue of statements of conditions of tenancies.
1) The 20[Board of Revenue subject to the general
approval of the Government] may grant land in a colony
to any person on such conditions as it thinks fit.
2) The 21[Provincial Government] may issue a
statement or statements of the conditions on which it is
willing to grant land in a colony to tenants.
1818
Amendment of Section 136 (1) of the Punjab Land Revenue Act: Repealed by the Colonization of
Government Lands (Punjab) (West Pakistan Amendment) Ordinance XXXVI of 1969.
19
Application of Chapter IV of Land Revenue Act, 1887, to certain village sites: Repealed by the
Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) West Pakistan Amendment) Ordinance XXXVI of 1969.
20
Substituted for the words “Provincial Government”, by West Pakistan Act XVI of 1957 as amended by
W.P. Ord. XXXI of 1961 which were previously substituted for the words “Local Government” by A.O.1937
21
Substituted for the words “Local Government” by A.O., 1937

22
[CGL ACT, 1912] [Section 10]

3) Where such statements of conditions have been


issued, the Collector may, subject to the control of
22
[Board of Revenue], allot land to any person to be held
subject to such statement of conditions issued under sub-
section 2 of this section, as the Collector may by written
order declare to be applicable to the case.
4) No person shall be deemed to be a tenant or to
have any right, or title in the land allotted to him until such
a written order has been passed and he has taken
possession of the land with the permission of the
Collector. After possession has been so taken, the grant
shall be held subject to the conditions declared applicable
thereto.
COMMENTS
SYNOPSIS

1. Scope 2. Grant of land


3. Cancellation of allotment 4. Misuse of state land Municipalities
5. Allotment obtained by 6. Grant of proprietary rights
Political influence
7. Horse breeding tenancies 8. Allotment within prohibited zone
9. Allotment of Charagah land 10. Locus Standi
11. Alternate allotment 12. Village mueens
13. Legal effect of delivery of 14. Fulfillment of conditions
possession
15. Sale by private treaty 16. Allotment to Government Servant
17. Occupancy Tenant
1. SCOPE
Sale of land at market price to its allottee in possession thereof under
bogus entitlement certificate on the ground of his affiliation with land and having
made same cultivatable by putting labour and expending money---Board of
Revenue after 2 ½ years on review petition filed by the Collector cancelled the
sale order---Validity---Board of Revenue in its other judgments had found that

22
Substituted for the words “Financial Commissioner”, by West Pakistan Act XVI of 1957

23
[CGL ACT, 1912]
sale by private treaty having attained finality would not require any relaxation of
[Section 10]
policy [2004 MLD 955]
Allotment of land in Cholistan area---Provision of Colonization of
Government Lands(Punjab) Act, 1912 being available to the scheme, Board of
Revenue and the other hierarchy provided under the West Pakistan Land
Revenue Act, 1967 would have jurisdiction---Question in issue was as to who
were the allottees of the suit land and who were occupying same
unauthorisedly---Such question being a question of fact, which was to be
determined on the basis of allotment orders/ title documents were to be produced
by the alleged allottees before the competent forum, cases were remanded to the
Board of Revenue, Punjab---Supreme Court directed Board of Revenue to ask
the occupants to produce their allotment/ title documents, if any, and in case
some of the occupants succeed in producing the allotment/ title documents and
also show that they had complied with the conditions of the allotment and the
breach, if any, was condonable under the law---Such occupants were to be
allowed to continue to remain in possession---Occupants who failed to satisfy the
Board of Revenue as to their entitlement to be in possession, were to be
ejected---Occupants having no title would have no legal right to remain in
occupation and would be liable to be ejected---Board of Revenue was further
directed to issue public notice before adjudicating upon the question of title so
that no body should have a grievance that he was not heard---Cases which were
remanded by the Board of Revenue to the Commissioner were recalled to be
decided by the Board of Revenue itself---Petitions for leave to appeal were
converted into appeals and were disposed of accordingly by Supreme Court.
[1998 SCMR 2231]
Grant of state land to Lambardar—Conferring of proprietary rights—
Essentials—Government was competent to issue statements of conditions on
which Government could grant state land to its tenant---Board of Revenue,
subject to approval of Government, could grant state land to any person on such
conditions which it considered fit or under any scheme prepared for such
purpose---Government or Board of Revenue had power and authority to change,
modify or cancel such statements of conditions issued and scheme made for
purpose of allotting state land or granting proprietary rights over the same to
tenants---Such power of Government/ Board of Revenue was also recognized by
S. 20, West Pakistan General Clauses Act, 1956. [1997 CLC 1146]
Violation of standing instructions/ statement of conditions having status of
statutory instructions, would constitute question of law, and as such could be
adjudicated upon by Board of Revenue. [1997 CLC 1217]
Government or Board of Revenue is empowered to change, modify or
cancel statements of conditions relating to any scheme for allotment of state
land. This power is also recognized by S. 20, General Clauses Act (1956)---
Memorandum modifying or changing statements of conditions of a Colony
Scheme can be issued by Government at any time before any decisive step with

24
[CGL ACT, 1912]
regard to conferment of proprietary rights is taken by government [NLR 1997
Revenue 116].
Under section 10 of the Act, government issues statement of [Section
conditions10]
that no person shall be deemed to be a tenant or to have any right or title in the
land allotted to him until such a written order has been passed and he has taken
possession of the land with permission of the Collector. After possession has
been so taken, the grant shall be held subject to the conditions declared
applicable thereto [1991 SCMR 2415]
Terms and conditions of grant of Barani land for wahi Chahi cultivation
engrafted to grant by Provincial Government in exercise of its power u/s 10(2)—
Cannot be varied by Colony Authorities. [NLR 1988 Revenue 100]
Provincial Government approved terms and conditions for grant of
lease---Not open to subordinate authorities to by-pass such statement of
conditions and specify their own conditions---Held: Action of Commissioner in
reducing maximum limit of one hundred acres to 25-acres is ultra vires and of no
legal effect [PLJ 1988 Revenue 4]
Statement of conditions issued under S. 10---Acquire force of law---
Administrative instruction---Can be construed as rules [PLD 1975 Lahore 445]
Form of notice issued by Financial Commissioner or Development
Secretary to Financial Commissioner---Not to be regarded as having been issued
by Punjab Government. [PLD 1952 Lahore 200]
2. GRANT OF LAND
Legal title of the land subject matter of these petitions vests with the
Secretary (Colonies), Government of Punjab, by virtue of Section 4 of the
Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912. Such land can be granted
to any person, by the Board of Revenue, subject to approval of the Government,
within the contemplation of Section 10 of Act, 1912. According to Rules of
Business, Administration of West Pakistan Highways Ordinance, 1959, vests with
Communication and Works Department and Secretary C & W has administered
control of such land but its legal title vest in Colony Department of Provincial
Government [PLJ 2008 Lahore 73].
Prescribed procedure for the grant of same was not followed---Where any
such departure was made from statutory provisions which infringed/ denied right
of public, especially of those who had equal right to proposed transaction or at
least felt interested to agitate there against by raising lawful objections, departure
thereof, was illegal and un-constitutional [PLJ 2005 Lahore 819].
West Pakistan Land Revenue Act 1967 and Colonization of Government
Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912, provide no provisions conferring powers upon
Revenue Officers to appoint Imam of Colony Village mosque---Collector, while
appointing petitioner as Imam of a colony village had exceeded his jurisdiction;
he was only competent to allot land to Imam Masjid and he had no power/
authority to appoint Imam [PLJ 2005 Lahore 639].

25
[CGL ACT, 1912]
Both parties claiming allotment of land in question had approached
Authorities for grant of land with un-cleaned hands and had practiced[Section
fraud upon
10]
land grant Authority and misrepresented facts with regard to their eligibility,
therefore, none of parties could be allowed to take advantage of their wrong,
fraud and misrepresentation. [PLJ 2003 SC 382]
Orders passed by Additional Commissioner as well as by the Board of
Revenue setting aside the allotment of the land of the petitioner and confirming
the allotment of the respondent became final qua the parties. Petitioner who was
no longer a lessee of the land could not claim the grant of proprietary rights.
[2003 SCMR 976]
Contract through auction comes into existence when offer of bidder is
accepted [NLR 2003 Civil 253].
Collector sanctioned an internal path through land in respect of which
proprietary rights were granted---Collector who under S.10(2) of CGL had
necessary jurisdiction to sanction an internal path [2002 CLC 620].
Petitioner was granted land on tenancy for cultivation on animal breeding
conditions. Renewal of the lease could not be claimed as a matter of right.
Tenant was found disentitled for renewal of lease on account of poor purchasing
results/ performance and of flagrant violation of the terms and conditions of
lease, he was rightly refused further renewal of lease. [PLD 2002 SC 716]
Allotment under Horse Breeding Scheme. Choice of Collector based on
recommendation of District Remount Officer would be unexceptionable when
such recommendations could not be demonstrated to be either arbitrary, fanciful
or capricious. Recommendations of District Remount Officer are entitled to due
weight. Orders of Collector. Additional Commissioner and Board based on such
recommendations would not be open to interference by High Court in its writ
jurisdiction under Art. 199. Dismissal of writ petition by High Court in such case
upheld by Supreme Court by dismissing petition for leave to appeal against
judgment of High Court. [2000 SCJ 620]
Allotment of residential plot to petitioner—Plot was subsequently,
commercialized on application of petitioner and he was required to pay specified
amount as commercialization fee—Plot in question at relevant time was,
admittedly, open and vacant and no construction had been raised thereon—
Authority, thus, acted clearly in excess of its jurisdiction in working out market
value of plot at specified rate per Marla—Authority should have applied such rate
per Marla which had been fixed in schedule for vacant plots. [1998 CLC 511]
Collector acted improperly by allotting two ‘Ihatas’ to the same person
especially without hearing respondent who was in possession of one of them.
[1995 MLD 795]
Auction of State land. Unless Government gave final approval, bidder
could not claim ownership of land. [1994 SCMR 30]

26
[CGL ACT, 1912]
Once land was made available for allotment, it would supersede all
Notifications imposing such prohibition and once allotment had been made,
[Section 10]
presumption would be that such act was done in good faith and in a lawful
manner and in circumstances, principle of locus poenitentiae was also attracted
[1994 MLD 801].
Allottee of more than four acres of land under Abadkari Scheme, would
not be entitled to allotment under Tender Scheme. Orders of Revenue Officers
canceling allotment under Tender Scheme upheld by High Court is not open to
exception and interference in writ jurisdiction. [NLR 1992 Revenue 124]
Grant of tenancy rights of land to Islamabad Oustees did not amount to
sale of land---The Islamabad Oustee had tenancy rights in the land, but not land.
He had some rights in the land, with a clog which barred their transfer without
permission, but the title and the proprietary rights remained with the government.
The transfer of tenancy rights therefore, did not amount to the sale of land. To
treat transfer of tenancy rights under the Colonization of Government Lands
(Punjab) Act, 1912 as sale of agricultural land for purposes of pre-emption, would
be to create a serious departure from the established practice, which has never
treated such transfers as pre-emptiable [1992 SCMR 1018].
Allotment of land under 05-years Lease Scheme---The land was included
in the schedule for Islamabad Oustees Scheme, application for grant of
proprietary rights, was rightly rejected---Further extension of term of lease on
ground of general policy of government was also correctly rejected as per policy.
[PLD 1987 Rev. 7]
Minor’s getting Government land as Hari, held not barred---There was no
bar to a minor getting Government land, if his father could get same cultivated by
his father, son, wife, brother, or major grandson [1984 MLD 822].
Disposal by auction permissible only when land available after final
determination of question of legality of cancelled of allotment [1980 SCMR 728].
Collector canceling allotments of respondents under Grow More Food
Scheme and allotting land so resumed to petitioners under defunct 15-years
Lease Scheme---Order of Collector being per incuriam, violative of judgment of
Supreme Court in instant case and contrary to policy instructions contained in
letter dated 26.04.1971, Additional Commissioner rightly interfered in matter in
exercise of his appellate jurisdiction and set the wrong right---Power to grant
colony lands Rests with Board of Revenue---Scheme (Fifteen years lease)
ceasing to operative---Cannot be revived by government U/S 10(2) for benefit of
a few individuals---Nor is competent for Collector to act, in blind obedience, to a
directive of Government which is not regularly issued by Board in terms of S. 10
(1)---Revenue Minister (in performance of functions of Government)---Cannot
cause a directive to be issued to Collector for grant of land, after its resumption,
to his favourites under defunct colony scheme (Fifteen years Lease Scheme)---
Held, order of Collector making allotments in favour of petitioners under defunct
Fifteen years Lease created an estate of a kind unknown to law and was without

27
[Section 10]

[CGL ACT, 1912]


lawful authority---Collector cannot make any allotments under defunct scheme
[Sectionby
10]
virtue of his power U/S 10(3) when government has not issued any specific
orders U/S 10(2) for revival of defunct Fifteen years Lease Scheme. [NLR 1979
Revenue 14]
Person can be deemed to be tenant if written order of allotment is passed
in his favour and in presence of such order possession is given to him. [PLJ
1978 Lahore 475]
3. CANCELLATION OF ALLOTMENT
Cancellation of grant of land---Refund of amount of grant to grantee---
Petitioner was granted land under statement of condition No.24 as contained in
Notification issued under S.10 of Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab)
Act, 1912 and petitioner had paid the grant amount as determined and
demanded---Said grant subsequently was cancelled---Collector was competent
to determine the sum as contained in condition No.24---Petitioner, in
circumstances was entitled to refund of the amount of grant along with other sum
as could be determined by the Collector in accordance with condition No.24
[2008 MLD 661].
Grievance of appellant was that while his application for proprietary rights
was still pending before Revenue authorities, the land in dispute stood
transferred to respondent by Provincial Government---Validity---Disputed land
stood transferred in the name of respondent by way of exchange allowed by
Provincial Government, therefore, Revenue authorities could not sit over the
order of government and decide the fate of land by extending lease of appellant
with retrospective effect after a lapse of 17/18 years even if the appellant was
lessee of land or happened to be in possession of some portion thereof [2007
SCMR 905].
Grow More Food Scheme---Allotment of land under such scheme and
delivery of possession to plaintiff in March, 1957---Policy decision of Government
to resume land for auctioning, tenancy of which had expired on or before Rabi,
1962---Resumption of plaintiff’s land under such policy---Suit by plaintiff to
declare order of resumption of land to be void---Civil Court decreed suit---
Appellate Court dismissed suit for lack of jurisdiction of Civil Court, which
judgment was affirmed by High Court---Validity---Suit land was not available and
could not be resumed as stipulated period of five years had to be completed after
Rabi, 1962, thus, question of termination of lease would not arise---Supreme
Court emphasized on implementation of such Government instructions regarding
grant of proprietary rights in letter and spirit in present case also---Supreme
Court set aside judgment of High Court and Appellate Court and restored that of
Civil Court [2007 SCMR 1169].
Cancellation of such sale by Board of Revenue after hearing all parties---
Governor referred to Member, Board of Revenue respondent’s application made
after one year and seven months of passing of cancellation order---Board of
Revenue treated such application as review petition and restored such sale

28
[CGL ACT, 1912]
without issuing notice to Government or Municipal Committee or petitioner---
[Section 10]
Validity---Impugned order was hit by principle of audi alteram partem---No reason
was disclosed for condonation of delay nor was such application supported by
affidavit of respondent---Review petition being barred by time was not
maintainable, thus, impugned order was not sustainable in eye of law [2007 CLC
1858].
Land owned by wife of allottee cannot be considered for determining
eligibility of allottee. Cancellation of allotment and resumption of land on basis of
land owned by wife of allottee would be illegal and perverse [NLR 2004 Revenue
83].
Tubewell Scheme, Cancellation of allotment. Allottees after the
resumption of land withdrew the advance money deposited by them with the
Authorities and had not paid any installment. No illegality or infirmity in the order
passed by the Authorities was found warranting interference by Supreme Court.
[2003 SCMR 1309]
Cancellation of allotment of plot for failure of allottee to construct house
thereon, within time fixed in sale deed---In cases relating to sale of immovable
property, time would not be of the essence of contract, and mere failure to raise
construction within period fixed in agreement could not result in cancellation of
transfer [PLD 1995 Lahore 429]
Petitioners being encroachers having shown their high-handedness twice
by occupying land which was in lawful cultivating occupation of allottees,
cancellation of allotment from names of original allottees and subsequent
allotment in the names of petitioners/ encroachers by Assistant Commissioner/
Collector was not justified in circumstances. [1995 MLD 246]
Auction of State land---Government has the discretion to accept or reject
the bid and order fresh auction of the disputed land [1990 CLC 962]
Auction not approved by the Government--State was competent to
resume the land from the 'name of the auction-purchasers [1990 CLC 970].
Respondents purchased land from Collector, mutation whereof had been
attested. Federal Government claiming land as its own. Dispute turned out
basically to be a dispute of title between Federal Government and Provincial
Government. Transfer of Property Act, being in force in the area where
transaction took place, conveyance deed by which property was sold should
have been looked into rather than mutation register and entries thereof, Courts
below having not attended to such aspect of case it appeared to be necessary to
examine the same for which leave to appeal was granted. [1989 SCMR 850]
Under clause (b) of condition 18 of statement of conditions, Deputy
Commissioner and not Commissioner is Authority vested with powers to resume
land---Held: Commissioner has not acted in exercise of his lawful jurisdiction and
impugned order is ultra vires [PLJ 1988 Revenue 4].

29
[CGL ACT, 1912]
Grow More Food Scheme read with Notification dated 26.04.1971—
Breach of condition of non-cultivation after termination of lease—Cannot
[Sectionbe
10]
termed as breach within meaning of provision in Notification dated 26.04.1971 so
as to deprive original tenant automatic restoration of his lease ad conferment of
proprietary rights—similarly, termination of lease in 1962 for non-payment of
lagan would not stand in way of tenant to entitlement to benefit of Notification
dated 26.04.1971 [NLR 1986 Revenue 69].
4. MISUSE OF STATE LAND BY MUNICIPALITIES.
Resumption of state land from Municipal Committee and its sale to sitting
shopkeepers at market price by private treaty---Shop in applicant’s possession
was rented out by Committee to his predecessor-in-interest, who later on handed
over same to applicant---Refusal of authority to sell such shop to applicant for not
being its original allottee---Validity---Applicant’s possession over shop was on
basis of agreement executed between Committee and original allottee---Mere
payment of amount of superstructure of shop by Committee to original allottee in
view of compromise arrived between them could not change status of applicant
and distinguish his case with other sitting shopkeepers---Committee was not
owner of state land---Board of Revenue had directed to recover rent already
received by Committee from shopkeepers [2007 SCMR 289].
Petitioners, who claimed to be in possession of land as tenants of
Government since 1983 and had constructed a shop thereon, moved application
for sale of said State land through private treaty, but no action was taken on their
application---Petitioners thereafter requested to grant them proprietary rights, but
same was declined by the Authority---Validity---No order had been produced by
petitioners showing that land in question was ever allotted to them or was given
to them on lease by Government, but land in question was transferred, free of
cost to Municipal Corporation and petitioners had been paying the rent to
Municipal Corporation---Corporation was to sell property as per provisions of R.
19 of Punjab Local Councils (Property) Rules, 1981, if it wished to do so, but it
could not be compelled to sell its property to petitioners---High Court, however,
directed that if the Corporation intended to dispose of property in question, same
would be offered first to the petitioners [2006 CLC 225].
State land located within Municipal limits---District Collector permitting
Municipal Committee to utilize such land---Construction of Shopping Plaza on
land by Committee and renting out same to tenants---Payment of rent by tenants
for about eight years---Tenant’s application to Board of Revenue for transfer of
proprietary rights---Board of Revenue in time-barred revision petition finding
tenants of shops to have prior right to purchase on payment of market price while
directing preparation of case for its sale by private treaty in their favour and
submission of summary to Chief Ministry for approval---Board of Revenue had
not passed impugned order in usual discharge of its function---Such order was
violative of the policy of the Board itself---Till final approval of Chief Minister and
then execution of sale-deed, tenants would remain tenants and would be
required under law to keep on paying rent of shops to the Municipal Committee---

30
[Section 10]

[CGL ACT, 1912]


Impugned order could not modify legal maxim “once a tenant, always a tenant”---
Tenants could not be granted prayer for transfer of land under shops, rather
[Section 10]
request of Municipal Committee for transfer of such land would be deemed
pending for its decision according to latest policy of the Government [2006 CLC
1330].
Disputed shops were constructed by Municipal Committee over
Government land and were rented out to petitioners through open auction---
Board of Revenue directed the authorities to prepare a case for sale by private
treaty in favour of petitioners, as they had a prior right to purchase the land in
question---High Court set aside the order passed by Board of Revenue---
Validity---Before taking over the land in question, Municipal committee took
necessary permission from District Collector---For all practical purposes,
petitioners were tenants of the Committee and could not set up hostile claim
against its right---Dispute, if any, was between Municipal Committee and Board
of Revenue---Petitioners had no locus standi to approach Board of Revenue for
transfer of disputed land/ shops, as the shops were constructed by Municipal
Committee and belonged to it---Judgment passed by High Court was correct and
no exception could be taken to it---Leave to appeal was refused [2006 SCMR
1419].
Petitioners predecessor-in-interest was given land in question on lease for
three years by Municipal Committee—land in question was state land which was
vested in Provincial Government and that Municipal Committee concerned was
not competent to sub-lease the same except on The-Bazari basis. [1998 SCMR
518]
5. ALLOTMENT OBTAINED BY POLITICAL INFLUENCE.
Lease of State land within urban areas in Sindh Province was to be made
by open auction and that too after making appropriate plotting---Plaintiff after
issuance of allotment letter sold away such land at a price four times higher than
that at which he obtained its lease---No reason had been assigned for leasing out
secretly such a huge unspecified area without demarcation at a throw away price
in utter violation of law for making unlawful gain---Such illegitimate transaction
was incapable of conferring title or right and could not be legitimized by Court on
any principle [2007 YLR 525].
Securing land of Municipal Committee at nominal price by exertion of
political influence---Recall of sanction order by Board of Revenue---Purchaser’s
application to the Governor and its onward reference to Board of Revenue---
Review of recall order by Board of Revenue on such application beyond statutory
period of 90 days without notice to Municipal Committee and contemporary
contender---Validity---Respondent had not moved such application before proper
forum---Application referred by the Governor had been illegally treated as review
petition by Board of Revenue and without application and affidavit of purchaser to
condone delay---Board of Revenue had accepted review petition at belated stage
without giving reason for condoning delay---Review petition being barred by time

31
[CGL ACT, 1912]
was not maintainable and order passed thereon was not sustainable in eye of
law [2006 SCMR 936].
Lease of “Nazool” land in favour of petitioners was granted under orders
[Section 10]
of Chief Minister who had no lawful authority to transfer/ lease “Nazool” land
under the control Board of Revenue, without observing legal formalities---
Competent Authority qua lease of Nazool land is Board of Revenue and that the
Chief Minister or Deputy Commissioner [PLJ 2005 Lahore 819].
Minister (Colonies) has no jurisdiction to interfere in colony matters.
Memorandum issued with his approval cannot be allowed to prevail against
entitlement already determined [NLR 1994 Revenue 190].
6. GRANT OF PROPRIETARY RIGHTS.
Five years Lease Scheme---Proprietary rights, grant of---Tender holder---
Locus standi---Appellant was neither party to the proceedings nor was an allottee
of land in dispute, therefore, he was not entitled to any hearing before the lower
forum---No misreading or non-reading of available material or misconstruction of
law was done by Board of Revenue---Judgment of High Court being well-based
and un-exceptionable did not warrant any interference by Supreme Court---
Appeal was dismissed [2006 SCMR 1093]
Petitioner who claimed to be in possession of state land as its lessee for
five years, had prayed for grant of proprietary rights in respect of such land---
Jamabandi showed that almost the whole land was “Bunjar Qadeem”---Lease of
petitioner stood expired, but after expiry of lease, petitioner did not apply for
extension of lease period and consequently it was resumed by order of District
Collector and said order of resumption had attained finality---Petitioner in
circumstances, was not lessee of land in dispute at the time he applied for grant
of proprietary rights in respect thereof---Petitioner, in circumstances, was not
eligible for grant of proprietary rights in respect of land in dispute [2003 CLC
240].
Allottee of land in dispute under Temporary Cultivating Scheme of 1979
as a landless tenant, applied for proprietary rights under said scheme, but he
was refused said rights on ground that he was not a continuous cultivator of land
in dispute from Rabi 1977---During pendency of earlier application of allottee,
another scheme came in 1983 wherein target date for cultivation was Rabi
1980---Allottee could not apply for grant of proprietary rights under said later
scheme of 1983 as his earlier application was pending adjudication---
Subsequently he filed application under later scheme after decision of his earlier
application, but same was dismissed on ground that it was filed after a delay of
long time---Revenue Courts had not taken into consideration fact that it was not
the fault of allottee in not filing of application for conferment of proprietary rights
in time as he was waiting the decision of his earlier application filed under
scheme of 1979---Unless and until that was decided allottee could not apply
under the second scheme [2003 CLC 1681].

32
[CGL ACT, 1912]
Tenant who is no longer lessee under Colony Scheme cannot claim
conferment of proprietary rights. When orders canceling his allotment had
attained finality. Colony authorities would be justified to include such land 10]
[Section in
schedule for auction and High Court would be right in refusing, in exercise of its
writ jurisdiction, to interfere with auction of land. Supreme Court upholding order
of High Court and refusing its leave to appeal. [2003 SCJ 169]
Temporary Cultivation Scheme. Grant of proprietary rights. Respondent
was in possession of the land right from the year 1978 which he had been
cultivating independently since then. Respondent got allotted the land in dispute
in his own right in year 1978 and he, being a grown up person at the time, was,
not dependent on his father. High Court had rightly issued the writ in favour of the
respondent [2003 SCMR 1349]
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
it was 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 genuine and valid. No legal infirmity having been pointed out in
impugned judgment, Supreme Court dismissed petition and refused leave to
appeal. [2003 SCMR 1931]
Lessee allotted state land under five years Temporary Cultivation Lease
Scheme would not be entitled to conferment of proprietary rights when orders of
Additional Commissioner and MBR setting aside allotment of lessee became final
[NLR 2002 Revenue SC 196]
Deceased submitted application within time under Notification dated 3rd of
September 1979. He fulfilled the conditions of eligible except the restriction
relating to use of land which he over came in the per 1993 as reported by A.C/
Collector and Addl. Commissioner – He would, therefore be granted proprietary
rights under Notification dated 3rd of September 1979 and price of the land wile
be charged under the amending Notification dated 11th of February, 1980 [K.L.R.
2000 Revenue Case 203].
Temporary lease—Rights of lessee—Scope—Temporary lease could be
cancelled at any time by Revenue Authorities because lease had not conferred
any right or title on the lessee to claim its proprietary rights---Grow More Food
Scheme was a scheme of permanent nature and was distinguishable from lease
on temporary cultivation basis—Regardless of date of termination of lease, in
view of policy laid down by Board of Revenue, allottees of Grow More Food
Scheme were eligible to obtain proprietary rights. [2000 SCMR 1083]
Land in dispute had been separately cultivated by petitioner and
respondent and that respondent had also deposited some instalments towards
price of land dispute, proprietary rights should be granted to petitioner and
respondent in equal shares. [1997 CLC 731]

33
[CGL ACT, 1912]
Petitioner was found eligible for conferment of proprietary rights on basis
of his proved cultivation for specific period—Petitioner having completed his
period of specified cultivation to satisfaction of Authorities, thereafter
discontinuation of possession could not be made ground for refusal to confer
[Section 10]
proprietary rights and resumption of tenancy. [1997 CLC 1735]
Tenancy under Well Sinking Scheme—Respondent being in possession
of about 43 acres applied for proprietary rights of entire area. Prescribed unit of
allotment being 25 acres, same could be little more or less—Area allotted to
respondent was admittedly little more than 27 acres, which constituted his
tenancy under the scheme—As regards excess area in possession of
respondent which was about little more than 15 acres, same was not and could
not be allotted to him under the scheme for such area was substantially in excess
of 10 per cent of prescribed limit of tenancy. [1997 SCMR 624]
Lambardari Grants under Pedigree Livestock Breeding Schemes (1960
and 1971) abolished in 1974. Allottees under Pedigree Livestock Breeding
Schemes would not be entitled to proprietary rights under Memorandum dated
13.07.1976 which conferred proprietary rights upon allottees holding land under
Scheme regulating Hereditary Lambardari Grants. Conferment of proprietary
rights upon allottees under Hereditary Grants Scheme and non-conferment of
these rights upon allottees governed by Pedigree Livestock Breeding Schemes
would not constitute violation of Art. 25 of Constitution (1973) [NLR 1997
Revenue 116].
Temporary Cultivation Scheme (1979), paras 3, 4, 5 & 8---Appellant
holding land under three different schemes including Temporary Cultivation
Scheme (1979)---Appellant did not opt to retain one of the grants---Authorities
refused to grant proprietary rights to appellant on his failure to opt for one of such
grants---Authorities were directed to confer upon appellant proprietary rights in
land up to subsistence holding in accordance with Temporary Cultivation
Scheme (1979). [PLD 1997 Supreme Court 294]
Allotment of Ihata in dispute made by Collector in favour of appellants/
allottees, was cancelled by Additional Commissioner on ground that Ihata in
dispute was meant for public welfare--- Ihata in dispute though was meant for
public welfare, but was in possession of appellants/ allottees for the last 10/ 15
years and they had constructed house on it---Appellants/ allottees had paid
current market price of Ihata in dispute plus 50 % surcharge in terms of letters of
Colonies Department---Dislocation of allottees of Ihata at such stage was not
proper---Order canceling allotment of Ihata was set aside, in circumstances.
[1997 MLD 2595]
Petitioner was granted proprietary rights over the land which he was
allotted under Grow More Food Scheme, but he was refused proprietary rights
over that land which was in his unauthorised occupation---Land in question,
being not part and parcel of allotted land, petitioner could not rely upon those

34
[CGL ACT, 1912]
instructions which were applicable to those lands which had been allotted. [1996
SCMR 1953]
Government giving option to purchase proprietary rights to those lessees
holding state land on temporary cultivation lease since before Kharif 1977 and
who were either landless or owner of less than subsistence holding---Petitioner
[Section 10]
exercised his option in writing for acquisition of rights in land---Collector
dismissed petitioner’s application on ground of his ineligibility---Appeal filed by
petitioner was dismissed by Commissioner on ground of limitation---Validity---
Petitioner’s appeal should have been decided on merits for question of rights of
petitioner was involved---Dismissal of appeal on point of limitation did not meet
ends of justice---Board of Revenue without going into merits accepted revision
and remanded case for decision afresh on merits. [1996 MLD 947]
Lease in favour of petitioner was slightly more than subsistence holding---
Refusal to grant proprietary rights in respect of entire temporary cultivation
scheme was contrary to terms enumerated in paras-3 & 4, Temporary Cultivation
Scheme---Petitioner could have been denied relief to the extent of excess area of
his leasehold---Leave to appeal was granted to contention raised by petitioner.
[1995 SCMR 1058]
Collector, on question of “Khushk Bias: was required to exclude in
consultation with “WAPDA Authorities an area of 500-feet while running
alongwith Khushk Bias” Course which he failed to do–Tenant was thus, entitled
to be considered in accordance with law with regard to conferring of proprietary
rights to him [1994 SCMR 975].
Respondent was not alleged to have violated terms of tenancy. No order
of cancellation of lease or resumption of land was passed against respondent.
Respondent was thus entitled to the grant of proprietary rights. [PLD 1992 SC
37]
Ejected Tenants Scheme. Eligibility to the grant of proprietary rights. Right
to apply for proprietary rights accrued to respondent on the date when memo
was issued. Right to apply for proprietary rights having accrued to respondent on
specified date he was found to be in self-cultivation on that date. Collector was
not justified to decline respondent’s request. [1991 SCMR 182]
Deceased Lambardar having been allowed proprietary rights of entire
land and deposited some installments of the price acquired vested rights in full lot
[1989 CLC 2489].
Lease of land in favour of petitioners predecessor-in-interest under sheep
Breeding Scheme. Such lease having expired, his request for grant of proprietary
rights was rejected. When decision of conferment of proprietary rights in favour of
respondents was made, petitioners, predecessor being neither lessee nor in
possession under Sheep Breeding Scheme, was not entitled to conferment of
proprietary rights [1989 SCMR 703]
Allottee of State land. Grant of proprietary rights denied to such allottee
despite the fact that he satisfied conditions for grant of the same. High Court’s

35
[CGL ACT, 1912]
view that although allottee was cultivating the land since specified date, yet such
land having been reserved for Jammu and Kashmir Refugees, proprietary rights
thereof, could not be granted, being unexceptionable. [1989 SCMR 1092]
Petitioner’s lease of land expired in 1972 and they remained in
unauthorised possession from 1972 to 1983. Petitioner’s possession after expiry
[Section 10]
of lease was unauthorised thus they could not claim grant of proprietary rights
under the notifications on the basis of nature of possession and lease did not
subsist in their favour since 1972. When the land was granted to respondent
under a permanent scheme, the petitioners had no locus standi to challenge the
same. [1989 SCMR 1740]
Where proprietary rights claimed on basis of earlier circular memorandum
of Board of Revenue were rejected on basis of subsequent circular memorandum
which later on was rescinded, findings based on such non-existent circular
memorandum, held, would automatically vanish [1986 MLD 1947].
Claim for proprietary rights rejected on basis of entries in Khasra
Girdawari by revenue functionaries---Board of Revenue in revisional jurisdiction
found Girdawari to have been recorded incorrectly against interest of petitioner
and setting aside order based on such incorrect entries allowed proprietary rights
to petitioner [1986 CLC 2147 (2)].
Application lasting for nearly three decades as per revenue record for
conferment of proprietary rights is only a technical matter--- Occupant can put in
application for conferment of proprietary rights after due date [NLR 1982
Revenue 132].
Auction of plots for residential purposes---Petitioner not put in possession
of plots due to failure to sign Memorandum of offer---Held: Not entitled to
proprietary rights in plots---Nor could petitioner obtain conveyance deeds in view
of Condition No.19 (1) of Scheme known as residential accommodation for
Government servants in Sargodha Division [PLD 1978 Revenue 78]
Evictees from elsewhere should not be ejected but be allowed to
purchase proprietary rights of land in possession [PLD 1980 Supreme Court
347].
7. HORSE BREEDING TENANCIES
Horse & Mule Breeding Scheme---Tenancy, grant of—Though in such
type of cases choice of Collector was to be given weight but it was equally true
that almost all forums in Revenue hierarchy and High Court, after considering
choice of Collector in petitioner’s favour, came to similar conclusions, which were
not only in accordance with record of case but also in consonance with law on
the subject---Leave to appeal was refused [2009 SCMR 562].
Horse Breeding Scheme---Re-allotment of lease to legal heirs---Remount
Officer, after considering the case of parties in comparison with each other made
recommendations in favour of one son but Collector recommended the other---
Commissioner took into consideration the recommendations of Remount Officer

36
[CGL ACT, 1912]
and allotted the land to the son recommended by Remount Officer---Order
passed by Commissioner was maintained by Board of Revenue as well as by
High Court in Constitutional jurisdiction---Supreme Court declined to interfere in
the orders passed by Commissioner and Board of Revenue [2006 SCMR 769].
Grant of land under "Horse Breeding Scheme"---Agreement related to an
[Section 10]
internal arrangement of the original grantee with his brothers and father in
respect of the affairs of the land and being not in conflict with the condition of
lease, was not violative of either of the Schemes in question or law---Such deed
would neither override the terms of the lease and create any right of the
executants of the deed in the lease-hold-rights nor would be binding on the
Government for the purpose of grant of proprietary rights in favour of any 'other
'person except of lessee---Agreement executed by the original grantee in respect
of the land, subject-matter of grant, being not against the public policy or law,
was valid and would be binding on his successors [2005 PLD 775].
Sons of deceased tenant were entitled to be allotted tenancy under the
scheme---Order of authority resuming land after death of original tenant and
depriving the sons from allotment of tenancy, was declared to be illegal by High
Court [MLD 2001 453].
Tenancy under Horse/Mule Breeding Scheme---Nature and grant of---
Such tenancies being scheduled tenancies, were not heritable--Government was
under no obligation to grant lease to heirs of deceased tenant---Such tenancy
could be granted to anyone of the heirs of deceased tenant who was considered
to be fully capable of satisfactorily carrying out conditions of grant in all respects
for the unexpired period of lease--Discretion had to be exercised in terms of the
report of District Remount Officer about suitability of any of the heirs of deceased
tenant [2001 CLC 120].

Horse Breeding Tenancy---Choice of the Collector based on


recommendations of the District Remount Officer was neither arbitrary, fanciful
not capricious---Recommendations of the District Remount Officer were entitled
to due weight--- Interference with such recommendations which were accepted
by all the for a including High Court, was declined by Supreme Court [2000
SCMR 531].
Horse Breeding tenancy is not heritable tenancy, however, after the death
of lessee with a good horse/ mare breeding record, tenancy should be allotted to
heirs of deceased in preference to any other applicant. [PLJ 2000 Lahore 177]
Animal Breeding Scheme (Kharif 1979 to Rabi 1990) issued through
Notification No.512-70/704-L-I, dated 22.09.1970. Lease period stood terminated
after expiry of original lease period for which grant was made under the Scheme.
After expiry of lease period, land automatically reverted to Government. Grantees
under the Scheme would have no right to urge that they could continue retaining
the land under the said terms and conditions or to get the expired lease renewed
as a matter of right---Colony authorities are vested with power to revise
statement of conditions of scheme already issued and issue fresh statement of

37
[CGL ACT, 1912]
conditions. There would be no illegality in revised statement of conditions when
no prejudice has been caused to grantees under original scheme---Stud
Grants---Policy elaborated. [1999 UC 34]
Son of old breeder would not be entitled to allotment of Horses[Section
Breeding
10]
tenancy in case old breeder surrendered tenancy during his life time, would be
entitled to succeed to Horse Breeding tenancy as against contestant whose claim
suffers from demerits [NLR 1996 Revenue 17].
Horse Breeding Tenancy—Allotment—Entitlement—Heirs of deceased
contestant would have right to be represented in place of their predecessor and
contest for the allotment of horse breeding tenancy especially when they had
landed property in the same Chak—Suitable allottee had to be chosen by District
Collector and on the death of deceased contestant, his right devolved on his
heirs—Heirs of deceased would, thus, be entitled to contest allotment of horse
breeding tenancy [1996 MLD 395].
Mule- breeding grant—Demise of tenant –Disposal of grant to be made in
accordance with clause 25 1942 Statement—Direction contained in letter issued
by Government in February 1952 is not inconsistent with discretion contained in
clause 25 of 1942 statement—There is, however, a clear direction in a letter
issued by Government in February 1952, to the effect that in the case of a
tenancy falling vacant on the death of a lessees with a good horse/ mule
breeding record it should continue to be allotted to the heirs of the deceased in
preference to any other applicant [PLD 1995 W. P. (Revenue) 39].
Eligibility for re-allotment of tenancy after death of original tenant—
Dispute between heirs of original tenant---Matter of allotment of land after the
death of original tenant, was with in the exclusive domain of Revenue Authorities
and if any factual enquiry was to be made, it could be done by the Revenue
Authorities and not by the High Court in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction
[1994 CLC 1946].
Horse Breeding Tenancy---Grant of---conduct of petitioners father---
whether can disentitle petitioner to grant of tenancy –Question of –Tenancy was
allotted to Gheba (grand father of petitioner) in 1912 and on his death, it was
allotted to Balia (father of petitioner) in 1970 Only reason given in impugned
order for ignoring petitioner ( in matter of allotment of tenancy after death of his
father) is bad record of his father –Held; Record of petitioner’s father is not
absolutely first class but no serious action was taken against him and tenancy
remained with him—Case remanded [PLJ 1990 Revenue 6].
It is settled law that the Horse Breeding Tenancy is not inheritable and
collector is not bound to accept recommendation of District Remount Officer [PLJ
1989 Revenue 12].
Tenancy under Horse Breeding Scheme---Not heritable and terminates
on demise of tenant and reverts to Government---Tenancy reallotted to son of
deceased having good breeding record under fresh statement of conditions---

38
[CGL ACT, 1912]
Collector bound to transfer possession of land to such allottee in terms of S. 10
(3), (4) [PLD 1979 Revenue 24].
A tenancy under Horse Breeding Scheme is not heritable and terminates
on the demise of tenant and reverts to Government the new allotment is made
[Section 10]
either to the heirs of the deceased allottee if he had a good breeding record or to
an outsider after inviting recommendations from the District Remount officer
[PLD 1979 Rev 24].
Horse breeding tenancy being declared to be a scheduled tenancy and
holding out no promise for purchase of its proprietary rights, held, would retain its
status as property of Government and continue to be governed by Act, V of 1912
[PLD 1979 Rev. 37].
DRO as local representative of Army Remount Department-To be
consulted in matters of allotment and his recommendations given due
consideration---Recommendations of DRO, though not last word, yet, held,
entitled to due weight---Other things being equal, memos, mean to allot tenancy
to heirs of deceased with good horse breeding record in preference to outsiders
—Claim of heir to allotment—To be preferred subject to suitability of heir---
Eligibility to allotment hence rests with persons considered suitable to discharge
such obligations---Question as to selection of suitable candidate for allotment of
tenancy- Purely internal with government—No person entitled to claim allotment
---Remount breeding grant---Tenancy in such grant granted only for a fixed
period, renewal from time to time, and terminating on expiry of lease and demise
of tenant---Allottee duty bound to maintain and manage mare and its progeny to
satisfaction of officer supervising remount breeding operations---Eligibility to
allotment, hence rests with persons considered suitable to discharge such
obligations---Choice confined to those considered suitable and qualified for
allotment---Question as to selection of suitable candidate for allotment of
tenancy---Purely internal with government---No person entitled as of right to
claim allotment [PLD 1976 Supreme Court 435].
Horse breeding grant—Forfeiture—Cause against forfeiture of tenancy to
be shown by delinquent breeder to collector—Plea taken by breeder that report
of District Remount Officer not factually correct or otherwise malicious or
motivated or based on wrong particulars—Failure or refusal on post of collector
to attend to matter and give finding on correctness or otherwise of such pleas—
Tantamount to refusal to exercise jurisdiction vested in him by law [PLD 1973
Note 10].
Tenancy not heritable tenancy—Tenancy granted- after tenants death to
one of his female heirs—Female heir becomes tenant in her own right—Sex no
bar for grant of land [PLD 1973 Lah. 726].
In the case of tenancy falling vacant on the death of a lessee with a good
horse/ mule breeding record, it should continue to be allotted to the heirs of the
deceased in preference to any other applicant---The Collector has to consult the
Remount Department but should not accept every statement of the Remount

39
[CGL ACT, 1912]
Department blindly. The discretion rests with the Collector and he should
exercise it after making sure of the position [PLD 1959 W.P (Rev) 39].
Horse—breeding grant—Succession—Collector to set out relative claims
of different heirs while making grant to particular heir---According to the former
[Section 10]
Punjab Government Memo No. 868-C dated 19.02.1952 “in the case of a
tenancy falling vacant on the death of a lessee with a good horse mule breeding
record it should continue to be allotted to the heirs of the deceased in preference
to any other applicant [PLD 1959 (W.P) Revenue 139].
Horse Breeding grant—Succession—Suitability overriding consideration-
Exclusion from inheritance, of grandson whose father had predeceased his
grand-father-–Not a relevant consideration [PLD 1959 W.P (Revenue) 142].
Horse-breeding grant—Allotment-Recommendation of District Remount
Officer—Ordinarily to be accepted [PLD 1959 (W.P) Revenue 150].
Mule- breeding grant—Succession to—To be ordinarily decided on
recommendation of District Remount Officer Rule of primogeniture mot
applicable---Held, that the rule of primogeniture had never been applied in the
case of succession to a mule-breeding grant---No person can be selected as a
tenant unless the District Remount Officer Pronounces him as suitable in all
respect [PLD Rev 1956 W.P 48].
8. ALLOTMENT WITHIN PROHIBITED ZONE
Member (Colonies) vide his order made offer to lessee of land for
exercise of one of the options with regard to land which had fallen in prohibited
zone: to continue as a temporary lease; to get alternate land outside the
prohibited zone; to purchase it on current rate---Lessee exercised last option and
opted to purchase land on current price---Process was started, assessment was
made accordingly and lessee deposited the money in full as per assessment
made by Assessment Committee---After order of Authority had attained finality;
request was made on part of District Administration for review of order of
Authority as land in question had fallen in the prohibited zone---Unanimous
finding of Board of Revenue that order of Authority passed on option of lessee
had attained finality and the sale was to be construed as sale through private
treaty and, in circumstances, would not require any relaxation of policy [2004
CLC 87].
Allottee applied for conferment of proprietary rights in 1960, contending
that he had fulfilled conditions under scheme – Original scheme did not contain
any concept of prohibited limits – if petitioners scheme had been processed, with
reasonable speed, same would have been completed long before establishment
of Town committee concerned, bringing land under prohibited zone District
Collector was directed to process petitioners case for conferment of proprietary
rights in accordance with law to the extent of their share [PLJ 2003 Revenue 8].
Allotment of land in favour of oustee of Mangla Dam which land was
made available to such oustees, was challenged on ground that land in dispute
could not have been allotted as same fell within prohibitory zone---Held once

40
[CGL ACT, 1912]
land was made available for allotment, it would supersede all notifications
imposing such prohibition---Land allotted to allottee, could not be cancelled from
[Section 10]
his name [1994 MLD 801].
Board of Revenue, on question prohibited zone, has issued instructions
that distance should be measured as required when allotment was made and not
as and when proprietary rights were conferred [1994 SCMR 975].
Condition that the land in respect of which proprietary rights were to be
granted should not fall within five mile radius of a Mandi Town or other Town,
envisaged that the Municipal limits for the grant of proprietary rights were the
Municipal limits at the time the scheme allowing the concession of sale of
petitioner came into force and not the time when collector made the order
refusing to grant proprietary rights to petitioners [1989 MLD 3148].
S. 10 (2) Grant of proprietary rights to lessees under Grow More Food
Scheme Relevant time for determining whether land allotted under Grow More
Food Scheme Falls within 5-miles radius/outer limits of a Mandi Town, other
Town or municipality as contemplated by memoranda dated 10.07.62 and
08.08.62 would be tine when memoranda dated 10.07.62 and 08.08.62 allowed
concession of sale to lessees and not time when Collector decides or lessee’s
application for grant of proprietary rights [NLR 1989 Revenue 37].
Grant of proprietary rights – such rights refused on ground of lands being
situated within prohibited limits of Town Committee having been constituted long
after applications for grant of proprietary rights were made, held, would not affect
rights of petitioner to grant of such rights [PLD 1986 Rev. 2].
Mamun Kanjan (admittedly) constituted as Town Committee 1983
whereas petitioners applying under notification dated 03.09.1979 – Held;
Becoming of Mamun Kanjan as Town committee in 1983 not to affect rights of
petitioners [PLJ 1986 Revenue 6].
Proprietary rights, conferment of Notification dated 03.09.1979 – City,
Municipal Committee at time of issue of Notification – Distance of prohibited zone
was to be counted as 5 miles – rejection of application for grant of proprietary
rights at that time on ground that land was situated within 10 miles of cantonment
Board, held, not proper [PLD 1985 RE. 57].
9. ALLOTMENT OF CHARAGAH LAND
Request of lessee for grant of proprietary rights in respect of land leased
out to him under Temporary Cultivation Scheme, was finally turned down on the
ground that land in question being Charagah land---No policy of Board of
Revenue existed under which proprietary rights of Charagah lands could be
granted to the lessees and grant of proprietary rights for Charagah lands had
been specifically prohibited as such lands were required for public purpose---
Request of lessee for grant of proprietary rights had rightly been turned down, in
circumstances [2004 CLC 215].

41
[CGL ACT, 1912]
Land in question was reserved as ‘Charagah’ land meant for extension of
‘Abadi Deh’ and for projects of general welfare of the community---Said land was
leased out to lessee for temporary cultivation for a fixed period only---Said land
having been transferred to Education Department for construction of building of10]
[Section a
school---Lessee, who had undertaken to surrender land as and when required by
Government for public purpose, had no locus standi to challenge transfer of land
to Education Department for construction of a school which was public purpose
[2003 CLC 1049].
Land reserved for Charagah could not be allotted under Islamabad
Oustees Scheme. [1997 MLD 2587]
Land, vesting in Government viz “Baqia Sarkar” un allotted land was
allowed to be exchanged with ‘Chiragah land’ which had earlier been leased out
to tenant and proprietary rights of such exchanged “Baqia Sarkar” land were
allowed to tenant by Board of Revenue in revision [PLD 1987 Revenue 42].
10. LOCUS STANDI
Order of cancellation and resumption of land in question, had no nexus
with allotment of the same in favour of respondents—petitioner, thus had no
locus standi to challenge order of allotment in favour of respondents Relief
claimed by petitioner of declaring order of cancellation of land in question, from
his name was illegal and further relief that he was entitled to grant of proprietary
rights, could not have been granted to him under the law [PLJ 2003 Lahore
313].
Petitioner was neither party to lease deed nor did he claim any right, title
or interest in promises which he desires to be cancelled from name of
respondent-–case contract was between respondent official and contesting
respondent-–petitioner thus, can not be deemed to be aggrieved party within
meaning of Art. 199 (a) (vi) of constitution, therefore, writ petition was not
maintainable [PLJ 2003 Lahore 356].
Grant of State land. Locus standi to challenge. Owner of the land in the
village has no locus standi to take out proceedings against a grantee of State
land under the relevant scheme [2002 SCMR 807]
Petitioners having not applied for allotment after they allegedly took over
Ihata from original allottee, they had no locus standi to dispute allotment in favour
of respondent. [1991 CLC 586]
Allotment to respondents challenged by appellants acting pro-bono-
publico-Locus standi of appellants [PLD 1989 Supreme Court 16].
Sub-tenancy, claim of---Government department, under whom plaintiffs’
claimed to be sub-tenants, itself not tenant---Effect---Transferee of state land
taking over management of Farm for implementing Government policy of
development and breeding of livestock---Position of such transferee being not as
tenant but agent of Government, plaintiffs, held, could not claim sub-tenancy

42
[CGL ACT, 1912]
under such Government agent---Plaintiffs were not entitled to protection under
section 7 (2) of Act V of 1912. [1987 CLC 1232]
Locus standi to file appeal before Board of Revenue against order of
commissioner accepting tenant’s appeal and restoring his tenancy under Horse
[Section 10]
Breeding Scheme which was resumed by Collector---Appeal filed by such person
before Board being in competently made, order of Board setting aside order of
Commissioner would be lawful authority [NLR 1986 Revenue 240].
11. ALTERNATE ALLOTMENT
Exchange of land allotted to respondent at other place with that of
disputed land regarding which petitioner’s case for grant of proprietary rights was
pending before Revenue Authorities---Validity---Contention of petitioner was that
after conferment of proprietary rights and execution of sale deed by Revenue
Authorities in favour of respondent in respect of land allotted to him at other
place, such land become privately owned land, which could not be allowed by
Revenue Authorities to be exchanged with disputed land as same could not be
treated as available land till final decision in judicial remedies available to
petitioner respecting his claim that he as allottee/ Patadar of disputed land under
Temporary Cultivation Scheme was entitled to conferment of proprietary rights---
Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider, inter alia, such contentions
[2006 SCMR 890].
Bara Reclamation Scheme, 1945---Government share of land under Bara
Reclamation Scheme--- Record showed that land falling to Government share
had not been excluded from ambit of Bara Reclamation Scheme, 1945
---Government share of land under Bara Scheme was necessarily cultivated,
when division of land between original allottee and Government took place---
Petitioners had thus not put in any extra effort in bringing same under plough--
Petitioners case being hit by Conditions Nos.2(a) and 2(b) of Notification, dated
19-3-1995, was dismissed---Board of Revenue observed that District Collector
might consider case of petitioner for grant of alternate land, if they were
otherwise eligible [2002 YLR 2577].
Appellants were directed to pursue their application for grant of alternate
land before the relevant Authority. Ban on allotment would not be applicable in
case of appellants for right had accrued to them under the relevant scheme much
before the ban. [1993 SCMR 1572]
High Court’s direction to Board of Revenue, with regard to lessee’s claim
for grant of proprietary rights of land in question, was upheld, while, its direction
for allotment of alternate land to rival contender who was a blind man i.e., person
in actual but unauthorised possession of same and for compliance report was
substituted to the effect that Member, Board of Revenue in his discretion may
provide him with alternate land [1992 SCMR 1163].
The BOR wrongfully observed that since the affectee had received cash
compensation from WAPDA he could not be relevancy to alternate allotment
[KLR Civil Cases 268 (Lahore)].

43
[CGL ACT, 1912]
12. VILLAGE MUEENS:
Government of the Punjab, Colonies Department had excluded “Imam
Masjid” from list of moeens” however, he was given right for allotment of four
[Section 10]
acres of land for his subsistence-Imam Masjid is, thus, a respectable person of
locality having sufficient religious knowledge and pious man---“Imam Masjid” is
neither subordinate to Lambardar of village nor any of Colony/ Revenue Officer---
Imam of village mosque being neither “kammi” or “Moeen” cannot be appointed
either by Lambardar or Revenue Officer [PLJ 2005 Lahore 639].
Government of the Punjab, Colonies Department vide letter No.12331-71-
TV/ 3348-CL, dated 08.11.1971, has excluded Imam Masjid from the list of
Mueen but he has been given the right for allotment of four acres of land for his
subsistence [2004 CLC 834].
Term “Mueen”---Connotation---Mueen, in a village, is a person who
serves the people/ inhabitants of the village, performing their functions in different
categories like Dhobi (washer man), Tarkhan(Carpenter), Chowkidar
(Watchman) and Chuhra (sweeper) etc.---All these persons serve the villagers/
people and are known as village servants [2004 CLC 834].
Petitioner being proprietor could not have been allotted “Ihata” which was
meant for “Mueens” only---“Mueens” being non-proprietor, Government had
earmarked certain Ihatas for them which could not be allotted to proprietors [PLJ
1997 SC 429].
13. LEGAL EFFECT OF DELIVERY OF POSSESSION
No person would be deemed to be a tenant or to have acquired any title,
right or interest in state land in absence of written order of Board of Revenue/
Provincial Government [2009 YLR 955].
Once petitioners were allowed to cultivate the barren land in dispute, they
could not have been ejected from said land which was developed by them—No
doubt the possession of the petitioners over the land in dispute was illegal, but
their longstanding possession over said land could not be overlooked—Accepting
revision, impugned orders were set aside, with direction to the Authority to look
into the matter, consider the claim of petitioners, scrutinize the record and after
hearing them should decide the case [2008 CLC 312].
Respondent had been proved to be never in possession of land in dispute
and had never been a tenant as contemplated by S. 10 (4) of Colonization of
Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 and had no right whatsoever over the
land---Allotment of land made in favour of respondent, in circumstances was void
ab-initio and no limitation would run against a void order---Allotment made in
favour of respondent, automatically stood cancelled, when he failed to pay initial
deposit within stipulated period of 30-days and by receiving some amount from
respondent, land would not stand restored in his favour [2007 CLC 1892].
Possession of a particular individual who come to cultivation the land
leased out to a lessee in the midst of period of lease after death of original lessee

44
[CGL ACT, 1912]
when no order of transfer had been passed u/s 10 (4) would not legitimize
possession of such an individual for the left over period of lease [NLR 2003
[Section 10]
Revenue 60].
Plaintiffs had claimed that suit land was allotted to their father under
Abadkari Scheme in Thal and that in view of provisions of S. 19-A of Colonization
of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 on death of Muslim tenant, succession
was to open in accordance with Islamic Law---Plaintiffs had simply relied upon
'Parchi Aarazi Kasht' and apart from that no other document had been produced
to prove that their father had any link with the suit property---No cogent evidence
was on record to prove that father of plaintiffs ever took possession of property in
question as a tenant under Government and that he was ultimately allotted that
property--- Plaintiffs having failed to prove their assertions and version as
asserted in their plaint, Courts below were not justified to decree the suit
[2002 YLR 2611]
After the payment of advance rent, it had become the responsibility of
Collector to hand over the possession to lessee and issue “Parcha Dakhal”
unless the default could be shown to have occurred on the part of the lessee/
allottee—It should always be construed that the requirement of S. 10(4) of
Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 had been fulfilled—Lease
of 15 years in favour of lessee, thus, would be deemed to stand in his favour.
[1997 CLC 2000]
Forums of revenue hierarchy recorded findings of fact that land in
question was initially granted to petitioners who had paid full rate Malkana and
that they had remained in peaceful possession of same till their possession was
disturbed by subsequent grantee—Board of Revenue, set aside such finding of
fact and found grant in favour of respondent to be valid and legal—Concurrent
findings of two revenue forums could not have been set aside by Board of
Revenue on basis of duplicate grant. [PLD 1997 Karachi 299]
Land reserved for Charagah could not be allotted under Islamabad
Oustees Scheme. [1997 MLD 2587]
Provision of S. 10 (4), Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act,
1912 has a damaging effect against plaintiff’s pre-emption suit, providing therein
that no person would be deemed to be a tenant or to that effect had been passed
and he had taken possession of land with the permission of Collector.
Possession of plaintiff was result of private arrangement with vendor which
arrangement was not recognized by law or the Government [PLD 1995 Lahore
178].
Petitioner was admittedly in cultivating possession of Government land as
a leases for the last thirty years–land in question was, however, given to
respondent without hearing petitioner---possession of land in question, being with
the petitioner same was not available for allotment to respondent at any stage---
petitioner, therefore could not be deprived of such land because of his admitted

45
[CGL ACT, 1912]
possession over it…. said land would be given to petitioner on lease on the same
terms and conditions on which it was given respondent [1995 MLD 859].
Sub-letting of land by allottee/ tenant would clearly offend against S.10(4).
[Section 10]
Sub-lettee could not be deemed to be a tenant and would not have right of
possession. Sale by allottee/ tenant after acquiring proprietary rights would not
be pre-emptible by sub-lettee who would not be a tenant u/s 10(4). [NLR 1995
Rev 59]
Entries in Jamabandi for specific years as also entry in Khasra Girdawari
showed petitioner to be “Ghair Morusi Baseegha Darya Burdi”--- All such
documents, unless rebutted in a proper enquiry, prima facie, lent some support to
petitioner’s contention that land in question was allotted to him, though
temporarily, in lieu of his “Darya Burdi” land [1994 CLC 484].
Period after expiry of one year, was treated as holding over possession of
lessees, in revision and lease of lessees was restored and extended accordingly,
subject to deposit of rears by lessees who would be at liberty to apply for grant of
proprietary rights, under new scheme [1994 CLC 2173].
Allottee or a purchaser of State land would attain status of a tenant, only
after he had been placed in possession of land by an order or with the
permission of Collector [1992 MLD 37].
Allotment under well sinking scheme of “ uncommanded Land” obtaining
physical possession of land and developing it, can not be deprived of proprietary
Rights in Land for require that land at time of it’s allotment was not state waste
land. Held by virtue of possession of land for 30-years a vested right was created
in favour of allottee to remain in possession and to claim ownership right of land
under Law [NLR 1992 Revenue 39].
Expression “cultivating possession” does not mean physical possession
of a tenant with a right to cultivate. Tenant would not be entitled to proprietary
rights in case revenue records do not prove delivery of possession of land to him.
[NLR 1991 Revenue 96]
Tenant holding land under Guzara Scheme/ Ejected Tenants Scheme---
Cannot be made to suffer on account of failure of Colony Authorities to
implement their own orders to get him possession of the land---Colony Schemes
are framed as egalitarian measures to come to aid of poor people and also to
meet requirements of food production in country—Order by Colony Authorities
passed in a slip-shod manner while completely ignoring purpose of law and
objects to be achieved by Schemes would be unsustainable in writ jurisdiction.
[NLR 1989 Revenue 86]
Delivery of possession, actual or constructive---Essential requirement for
creation of tenancy---Mere deposit of sale price or execution of conveyance
deed---Cannot confer proprietary rights on allottee of land under Colonization
Scheme [PLD 1978 Revenue 78].

46
[CGL ACT, 1912]
Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912). S. 10 (4) –
Possession envisaged by S. 10 (4). Does not make any distinction between
physical and constructive possession Allottee put in constrictive possession by
authorities themselves Acquires status of tenant under Act V of 1912 –[Section
Full price
10]
of land having been paid and sale deed execute and sale deed executed and
registered in favour of tenant Government and its functionaries, held, cannot
retrace steps and reclaim land [PLD 1978 Lahore 1146].
Acquisition of proprietary right without allotment order---Entry in
“Roznamcha Waqiati” of such acquisition---Validity---Supreme Court granted
leave to appeal to consider whether in absence of any allotment order by
competent authority, mere report of “Roznamcha Waqiati” could confer right to
claim proprietary rights in addition to effect of jurisdictional bar perceived by
Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 [2007 SCMR 554].
14. FULFILLMENT OF CONDITIONS
Use of land for the purpose other than for which it was granted---Land,
the subject matter of the suit was colony land granted for agriculture purposes---
Plaintiff entered into agreement to sell with defendant regarding the suit land---
Whole consideration amount was paid by the plaintiff and possession was
delivered by the defendant---Plaintiff started developing the land for residential
purposes---Construction of the plaintiff was interfered by the defendant on the
ground that the plaintiff could not use the land for residential purposes---Trial
Court declined to grant interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff---Validity---
Plaintiff had undertaken that he would alone be responsible for the
consequences and for payment of any royalties, penalties and other dues
chargeable by Colony department/ Board of Revenue or any other agency in
respect of development of disputed land and its conversion to residential uses---
Order passed by the Trial Court was set aside and application for interim
injunction was allowed by High Court [2008 YLR 915].
Allotment of land in "Jori Scheme"---Land in dispute was allotted to
predecessor-in-interest of respondents and one other and after death of
predecessor-in-interest of respondents a dispute arose as petitioner had claimed
that land in dispute was allotted to him---Suit filed by respondents had
concurrently been decreed by the Trial Court and Appellate Court and
respondents were held owners of land and that petitioner had got nothing to do
with the suit-land---In absence of any ground for interference with the concurrent
findings recorded by the courts below which were fully supported by the record,
revision against said concurrent findings, was dismissed [2008 CLC 833].
Contention of plaintiffs was that all the courts below had decided case
against them in violation of mandatory provisions of Ss.10 & 19 of Colonization of
Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912---Validity---Supreme Court could not go
behind concurrent findings of fact recorded by courts below, unless it was shown
that such findings were, on the 'face of it, against the evidence or so patently
improbable, or perverse that to accept them would amount to perpetuating a

47
[CGL ACT, 1912]
grave miscarriage of justice, or if there had been any misapplication of principle
relating to appreciation of evidence or finally, if finding could be demonstrated to
be physically impossible [2007 SCMR 1602]
High Court dismissed Constitutional petition on ground of laches. Validity.
[Section 10]
Finding of fact of Board of Revenue that petitioner was in breach of conditions of
agreement, had attained finality. Such findings of High Court did not suffer from
any legal infirmity. [2004 SCMR 508]
Contention of petitioner based on the report of Audit Officer was that
respondent having not brought under cultivation fifty per cent of area was not
eligible for restoration of his earlier allotment. Validity. Such report was totally
one-sided. Initial allotment in favour of petitioner had been made in oblivion of
such notification, thus his such contention was not of any help to him. [2003
SCMR 38]
Allotment under Grow More Food Scheme (1956) Non-satisfaction of
requirement of 50 % of the area being brought under cultivation would be
inconsequential when allotment of rival allottee was made in oblivion of
Notification dated 26.04.1971. Held: Orders of Revenue authorities in favour of
allottee under Grow More Food Scheme which were maintained by High Court
with dismissal of writ petition filed to challenge orders of Revenue authorities
were unexceptionable and did not warrant interference. [2003 UC 447]
Respondent was allotted State land as an oustees from Islamabad
Capital Territory, when there was no prohibition on its allotment and it was not
Chiragah. Respondent made full payment therefor and obtained sale deed.
Collector subsequently converted said land into Chiragah and cancelled its
allotment. Respondent challenged vires of order of Collector in civil suit, which
was decreed by Civil Court and its decree remained upheld by First and Second
Appellate Court. Validity. In absence of any violation of the terms and conditions
of the grant by the respondent, neither the administration i.e. District Collector,
Commissioner and/ or Member, Board of Revenue nor the Civil Courts had any
jurisdiction to undo his grant [2002 SCMR 807]
Collector allotted land reserved for common use of community to
petitioners converting same for use of residential purposes of petitioners—Larger
interest of community could not be allowed to be hurt for convenience of a few—
Even otherwise Collector had no power to convert classification of land. [2001
CLC 340]
Under the instructions prevailing at the time of filing application for
extension of lease, petitioner being not entitled to any extension in lease his
application for extension was rightly not accepted by Authorities---Petitioner
having failed to prove filing of application for grant of proprietary rights, no order
for grant of proprietary rights could be passed---Petitioner was thus, liable to
account for and pay mesne profits for the use and occupation of land in question
from date status quo was directed to be maintained by High Court after expiry of
ten years period of lease. [1998 MLD 575]

48
[CGL ACT, 1912]
Ejected Tenants Scheme read with Memoranda dated 08.10.1960 and
22.01.1971. Allottees conferred proprietary rights under memorandum dated
08.10.1960 visualized 12.50 acres as maximum limit of land in which proprietary
rights could be granted. Resumption order passed under Memorandum dated
[Section 10]
22.11.1971 which decreased maximum limits from 12.50 acres to 8 acres of land.
Held, allottee cannot be made to loose right vested in them by lawful orders of
District Collector passed under memorandum dated 08.10.1960 [NLR 1996
Revenue 23].
Assistant Commissioner/ Collector incompetently cancelled allotment of
original allottees and allotted same in the names of petitioners—Petitioners being
encroachers having shown their high-handedness twice by occupying land which
was in lawful cultivating occupation of allottees, cancellation of allotment from
names of original allottees and subsequent allotment in the names of petitioners/
encroachers by Assistant Commissioner/ Collector was not justified in
circumstances [1995 MLD 246].
Both petitioners were at fault in not applying for extension of their
allotment and lease at the time of expiry of their respective tenures—Additional
Commissioner, in circumstances, had rightly refused claim of both parties
observing that disputed land was available State land should be disposed of
further according to policy. [1995 CLC 1616]
Land in question, was allotted to respondent under Grow More Food
Scheme on 14.12.1956 and he came in possession thereof 08.04.1957 said land
was subsequently allotted to petitioner under Islamabad Oustees Scheme. Land
under Grow More Food Scheme allotted to respondent was never included in the
schedule of Islamabad Oustees Scheme. Allotment of such land to petitioner was
thus, void ab-initio. [PLD 1992 SC 37]
Bara Scheme. Petitioners were granted State land under Bara Scheme
for a period of 8-years. Petitioners thus did not fulfill the condition of cultivation of
80 % of the land. Questions of fact having been decided against the petitioners,
no case for interference was made out. Petition was dismissed [1989 SCMR
1668 (2)]
Cultivated areas and areas already leased out under any of schemes of
Government could not be let out under Tubewell Sinking Scheme-Any lease
granted by a public functionary regarding such land, held, void ab initio
[1984 CLC 1192].

Tube Well Sinking Trial boring for---Condition precedent---Failure to


fulfill---Effect of--- Authority making no trial boring despite of fixed amount for
such purpose in time and several representations made by petitioner--- Held:
Trial boring being condition precedent for subsequent sinking of Tube Well in lot
allotted to particular allottee, petitioner not to be deemed to have waived such
condition merely because of their having accepted such allotment without test
bore--- Held: further---Authority having failed to discharge its own obligation,

49
[CGL ACT, 1912]
petitioners to stand absolved of their obligations under grant and no (subsequent)
alleged breach of conditions to be attributed to them [PLJ 1983 Lahore 565].
Opinion of Collector that petitioners had not fulfilled condition of
cultivation of 80-percent of land was justified and not open to question [NLR
[Section 10]
1983 Revenue 128]
Land leased out to petitioner resumed on expiry of lease period---Land
already standing included in schedule of Islamabad Oustees Scheme---
Temporary Cultivation Condition being applicable to lessees and resettlement of
persons on state land constituting public purpose, land, held, rightly resumed---
Disputed land standing included in schedule of Islamabad Oustees Scheme at
time of its please. Temporary Cultivation Condition (dated 22.09.1944) made
applicable to leases granted under notification dated 07.02.1978. Resumption of
allottees land on expiry of ten years lease period. Unexceptionable [1981 SCMR
1134].
All Ihatas in colony of Punjab owned by provincial Government –Ihatas
unless Finally transferred with full proprietary rights to allottees—Held, remain
amenable to provisions of Act V of 1912 [PLD 1979 Rev. 37].
Colonization of Government lands (Punjab) Act ( V of 1912), S. 10 read
with statement of conditions of grant of tenancies (issued under S. 10) para 21--
Permanent residence in Chak not an essential “pre-requisite” in case of
“prospective” allottee for allotment in his favour [PLD 1968 Lah. 321].
Instructions issued by Board of Revenue in connection with allotment of
and transfer of proprietary rights in land under Grow More Food Scheme, 1956---
Have force of law and are not merely department instructions for information of
Revenue Officers [PLD 1968 Lah. 1155].
State land leased out to lessees in 1966 for the years, was regularised by
Board of Revenue one year before expiry of lease period- According to latest
instructions temporary lease was to be extended from time to time till 1995
---Lease of lessees who were in cultivating possession land, was extended till
1995 accordingly [1997 MLD 2629].
15. SALE BY PRIVATE TREATY
While determining the value of the land acquired by the Government, only
the past sales should not be taken into account, but the value of the land with its
potentiality should also be determined by examining other factors [2008 CLC
Pesh. 58].
Disputed land was leased out to grandfather of petitioner and according
to the decision of Board of Revenue, dated 29-9-1992, petitioner was entitled to
proprietary rights of the land---Provincial Government did not implement the
order of Board of Revenue on one pretext or the other---Plea raised by petitioner
was that proprietary rights be conferred upon him at the rates prevailing at the
time of expiry of lease in year 1956---Validity---In view of the earlier stance of
Provincial Government and Board of Revenue, the authorities were estopped to

50
[CGL ACT, 1912]
challenge the claim of petitioner for grant of proprietary rights of lease land---Sale
under the lease instrument was to be at a reasonable price, which was distinct
from market price---Order of Board of Revenue had attained finality and
according to that order petitioner was the only living grandson of the original
[Section 10]
lessee, who was entitled to proprietary rights of subject land under the instrument
dated 30-11-1891---No reason was available on record as to why the order of
Board of Revenue could not be implemented [2006 YLR 554].
Request of petitioners for regularization of their unlawful occupation over
said land, was rejected, but keeping in view long affiliation of petitioners with land
in dispute since independence, petitioners, were allowed to purchase on
payment of current market price with 50% penalty for un authorised possession
and 10% surcharge [1996 MLD 751].
Petitioner and his father had been in possession of land in question for
the last fifteen years and had developed the same fully --- petitioner was,
however, allowed to purchase land in question on market price, as on the date of
present order provided Collector was satisfied that he had developed such land
was permanently residing there on [1991 CLC 660].
16. ALLOTMENT TO GOVERNMENT SERVANTS
School teacher would not be disentitled to allotment under notification
dated 24.04.1971 as mere employment as a teacher cannot be held to be
impediment in his self and personal cultivation when he was duly and properly
entered in relevant revenue record and Khasra Girdawari as a self cultivator
[NLR 2004 Revenue 83].
Both, at the time of first and second allotment of state land, allottee was a
teacher of a school run by a Local Authority and as such was not government
servant, but when Educational Institutions were nationalized, allottee entered in
field of government service---It was a subsequent event and could not
retrospectively forfeit initial and basic eligibility of allottee to get allotment and
hold on to it---Initial eligibility of allottee was required to be judged on criteria laid
down at time of allotment of land under Grow More Food Scheme---Supervening
disability for continuance of allotment of state land by government servants could
not be allotment of land which was valid at the time, it was made---Scheme did
not compulsorily require disclosure of subsequent induction in government
service by allottee and it did not create any disability for him to hold and continue
his allotment of land [1993 CLC 2444].
Fifteen Year’s Lease Scheme framed by Punjab Government under
Notification No.1622-71/1205-CL-I, dated 24.04.12971. Cancellation of
allotments on ground that allottees being Government servants were disqualified
under Scheme. Unexceptionable. Argument that allottees’ revision application to
Board of Revenue was decided by person who was not authorised by law to deal
with it. Repelled as being of no consequence inasmuch as allottees were initially
ineligible for grant of lease of land under Scheme. [NLR 1981 Revenue SC 164]
17. OCCUPANCY TENANTS

51
[CGL ACT, 1912]
Status of–-Ghair Dakheelkar without payment of batai is not that an
owner---status as Ghair Dakheelkar without payment of Batai, held, was not
[Section 11]
synonymous with owner [1989 CLC 457].
Entitlement to rights of ownership by occupancy tenants – plaintiffs were
given ownership rights in land held by them as occupancy tenants in proportion
to share of Batai rent paid by them to their land lords – plaintiffs, however
claimed that they paid rent partly in cash and partly in form of share of produce
and were thus entitled to acquire rights in entire land held by them – Documents
on record showed that plaintiffs paid Batai rent only and averment that they paid
rent party in cash and partly in form of share of produce, held, could not be
accepted as true version in presence of record---An occupancy tenant who paid
no rent beyond the amount of land revenue etc. be came owner of the entire land
comprised in his tenancy without payment of any compensation [1988 CLC
1498].
Occupancy rights in state land pre-emptible—Land held, includes
occupancy rights and decree pre-emption suit quo sale of occupancy rights
executable without permission of commissioner, [p. 919C] [1988 MLD 917].
Land held, includes occupancy rights and decree in pre-emption suit qua
sale of occupancy rights executable without permission of Commissioner [1988
MLD 917].
Eligibility to acquire occupancy rights—Applying for conferment of such
rights does not by itself raise any presumption that tenant had acquired
occupancy status [PLD 1960 W.P (Rev) 11].

11. Legal effect of statement of conditions. Subject to the


provisions of this act, the grant of any tenancy in accordance
with any statements of conditions which have been or may
hereafter be issued by the Provincial Government under the
Government Tenants (Punjab) Act, 1893, or under this act,
shall be deemed to be transfer of a land within the meaning of
the Crown Grants Act, 1895, and shall be governed by the
provisions of the said Act.
COMMENTS
Terms and conditions conflicting with statutory provisions-Cannot be
issued by Government-Section 11 providing for legal effect of statement of
conditions and rendering grant of tenancy according to such statement of
conditions to be transfer of land within meanings of Government Grants Act,
1895 subjected to provisions of Act V of 1912-Contention that Commissioner's
authorisation to grant lease deemed to be a statement of conditions under S. 10
(2) of Act V of 1912, held, devoid of force and no statement of conditions could

52
[CGL ACT, 1912]
have any force if not in accordance with provisions of Act V of 1912
[Section 12]
[1980 CLC 1042].
Grant of tenancy according to “statement of conditions” issued under Act
V of 1912---Deemed to be transfer of land within meanings of Act XV of 1895 and
governed by provisions of such Act. [PLD 1976 Supreme Court 435]
12. Temporary absence. Any condition included in any
statement of conditions which imposes an obligation of
residence shall not be deemed to have been infringed by
reason only of the temporary absence of a tenant who has
established a permanent residence in the estate in which his
holding is situated.
COMMENTS
Where the grantee had paid all the dues to the Government, he had been
vested with proprietary rights and was competent to transfer the suit-land in
favour of the plaintiffs by means of registered sale-deed executed in their
favour---When sale-deed in favour of the plaintiffs was competently made, the
subsequent transfer of the said land by grantee in favour of third party was
without legal authority [2002 MLD 518]
Contention that petitioners case was covered by a directive issued by
Colonies Department--High Court, however, finding that no such contention was
raised before Member, Board of Revenue and observing that remedy of
petitioner lay in agitating matter before Board of Revenue in accordance with
law--Petitioner unable to controvert finding of High Court--Petition for leave to
appeal dismissed [1987 SCMR 755].
Respondents prior allottees under 'Grow More Food' Scheme but, land
resumed for default in rent and allotted to respondents-Restoration of land to
prior allottees, held, unexceptionable, particularly when petitioners offered
alternate land as compensation-Petitions dismissed on, merits in circumstances
[1979 SCMR 415].
Section 12 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912
provides that any condition included in any statement of conditions which
imposes an obligation of residence should not be deemed to have been infringed
by reason only of the temporary absence of a tenant who has established a
permanent residence in the estate in which his holding is situated. When the
grantee had admittedly built a residential house and had been living in the village
in which his holding was situated, for about fifteen years and the report of the
Patwari only stated that he had gone to his previous residence seven or eight
days before, it was held that there was no material before the Colonization
Officer was, therefore, not entitled to resume the grant under section 24 of the
Punjab Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912. [PLD 1960 (W.P.) Lahore
995]

53
[CGL ACT, 1912] [Sections 13-15]

13. Entries in record of rights or in annual record to be


equivalent entries in register issued under Act-III of 1893.
Where in any statement of conditions issued before the
commencement of this Act reference is made to any register
prescribed under the Government Tenants (Punjab) Act, 1893,
then the record-of-rights or the annual record shall, so far as
may be, deemed to be such a register.

14. Position of tenants holding hitherto under Act-III of


1893. Any person who at any time before the commencement
of this Act was a tenant from 23[Government], of land to which
the Government Tenants (Punjab) Act, 1893, applied and for
which a statement of conditions was issued under that Act,
shall, notwithstanding any previous agreement or anything
contained in the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887, or any other
enactment now in force, be deemed to have accepted and to
hold the lands of which he is a tenant in accordance with such
statement of conditions.
Provided that unless such tenant 24[not being a Muslim]
shall, by deed executed and registered within twelve months
from the date on which this Act comes into force, declare that
the succession to his tenancy shall be in accordance with the
statement of conditions applicable thereto, succession to his
tenancy shall be regulated by the provision of sections 20, 21,
22 and 23 of this Act.

15. Purchaser to be tenant pending payment in full of


purchase money. A purchaser from Government of land who
has been placed in possession of the land by order of the
Collector shall be deemed to be a tenant of such land until the
full amount of the purchase money with any interest due
thereon has been paid and the other conditions set forth in the
statement of the conditions of sale issued by the Collector have
been fulfilled.
23
Substituted for the words “The Crown”, by West Pakistan Laws (Adaptation) Order, 1964
24
Inserted by the Punjab Act III of 1952

54
[Section 15]

[CGL ACT, 1912]

COMMENTS
SYNOPSIS

1. Allottee becomes full owner- 2. Allottee ceases to be a tenant.


Conveyance deed not
necessary.
3. Other conditions also required 4. Government functionaries become
to be fulfilled. functus officio.
5. Widow becomes absolute 6. Purchase price can be deposited
owner. without getting permission of
Collector.
7. Sale of land pre-emptable even 8. Effect of breach of conditions.
before issuance of conveyance
deed.
1. ALLOTTEE BECOMES FULL OWNER. CONVEYANCE DEED NOT
NECESSARY.

After full price is made and proprietary rights are acquired in respect of
land allotted to tenant under provisions of Colonization of Government Lands
(Punjab) Act, 1912, tenancy comes to an end and allottee is not governed by
statement of conditions---Such allottee becomes absolute owner and is not
governed by the provisions of Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act,
1912 [2009 YLR 1593].
Tenant---Meaning of---Tenant---means purchaser from Government who
has been placed in possession of land by order of the Collector---Remaining
tenant under the government till he pays the full amount of purchase to the
government and after payment of full price of land he becomes absolutely owner
of the property comes out of ambit of colony [PLJ 2007 Lahore 724].
Any person remains tenant under government till he pays full amount of
purchase to the Government---After payment of full price of land such person
becomes absolute owner of the same and property comes out of the ambit of
Colony/ Revenue hierarchy [2006 CLC 543].
Allottee/ tenant of the Crown land becomes owner of the land when
makes the payment of entire price of the land under S. 15---Date of the payment
of price is effective date for passing of title in favour of grantee notwithstanding
the conveyance deed is not executed in his favour. [1994 MLD 1630]
Requirement of execution of sale deed after conferment of proprietary
rights is merely a formality. Allottee would be owner without execution of sale
deed when entire sale price stands deposited. [NLR 1992 UC 531]

55
[CGL ACT, 1912] [Section 15]

Deposit of whole of price of land by allottee of land would make him its full
owner for all purposes. Preparation and registration of final conveyance deed in
such case would be a mere formality. [NLR 1992 Revenue 124]
Proprietary rights in respect of land were given to petitioners
subsequently who paid almost entire sale price of land except last instalment---
Land was cancelled from names of petitioners--- Order of Authority giving
proprietary rights to petitioners had never been assailed by any other interested
party---Petitioners who were willing to pay immediately the last instalment of
remaining price of land, could not be deprived of their proprietary rights in respect
of land in question [1991 CLC 1443].
Price of land having been deposited in 1958 and such fact having been
proved by unrebutted evidence, respondent had become absolute owner of land
the moment he paid the requisite price and his title was not postponed to the
acquisition of conveyance deed [1991 CLC 2005]
Lambardari Grant—Deceased Lambardar having been allowed
proprietary rights of entire land and deposited some instalments of the price
acquired vested rights in full lot [1989 CLC 2489].
Government land. Allotment of Tenant dying before making full payment.
Inheritance of. Section 15 of Act provides in express words that “A purchaser
from Government, of land, who has been placed in possession of land by order
of Collector, shall be deemed to be a tenant of such land until full amount of
purchase money with any interest due thereon, has been paid and other
conditions set forth in statement of conditions of sale issued by Collector, have
been fulfilled”. Admittedly Nizam Din was tenant of Government land and price
had yet to be paid by him. Held: Section 19-A of Act would not be available for
determining heirs of Nizam Din and that mutation of inheritance was in
accordance with law governing inheritance as provided in section 20 of Act.
Appeal dismissed. [PLJ 1989 SC 397]
Payment of full price and fulfillment of other conditions---Confer
automatically, proprietary rights subject to conditions set forth in conveyance
deed and schedule-II---Further transfer by allottee, after automatic transfer of
proprietary rights, not barred notwithstanding Collector’s order to contrary. [1978
RLR 22]
Person, acquiring land from government under Colonization of
Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912, becomes proprietary of land on payment
of all installments due and thereafter his succession not governed by provisions
of that Act, relating to inheritance, but by ordinary law of succession despite fact
that formal conveyance deed neither drawn up or executed nor requirement of
registration of sale deed, specified in S. 54, Transfer of Property Act, 1882,
complied with. [PLD 1971 Baghdad-ul-Jadid 38]
Acquisition by tenant of proprietary rights in land included in tenancy –
Dates from date of deposit of price, not from subsequent date of execution of

56
[CGL ACT, 1912] [Section 15]

sale – deed – Tenant absolute owner from date of deposit [PLD 1956 (W.P)
Lahore 609].
2. ALLOTTEE CEASES TO BE A TENANT.
After completion of the sale and payment of the entire price, the
purchaser could himself take proceedings to get the possession of land--Once
the Government had sold away the land and title was vested in the purchaser,
provisions of S.32 of Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 could
not, be invoked by the purchaser [2001 YLR 223]
Allottee of land from out of Chiragah—Ceases to be a tenant under Act
after payment of full sale price—Cancellation of allotment after payment of sale
price would be illegal—It can be challenged by way of civil suit. [NLR 1990
Revenue 63]
3. OTHER CONDITIONS ALSO REQUIRED TO BE FULFILLED.
Full payment alone not sufficient to confer title on auction-purchaser of
Government land--Formal execution of conveyance deed is an essential
requirement to become owner of State land---Conditions for conferment of title on
auction purchaser stated [1990 CLC 970]
Delivery of possession, actual or constructive---Essential requirement for
creation of tenancy---Mere deposit of sale price or execution of conveyance
deed---Cannot confer proprietary rights on allottee of land under Colonization
Scheme [PLD 1978 Revenue 78].
Sale takes place on payment of full purchase money only if “other”
conditions of sale are also fulfilled---Tenant not a hereditary Lambardar---Sale of
Lambardari land, held, not complete by mere payment of full purchase money---
Erroneous grant of permission of sale---Government may recall such permission
on principle of locus poenitentiae---Such recall or cancellation of permission is in
accordance with law. [PLD 1967 Lahore 52]
4. GOVERNMENT FUNCTIONARIES BECOME FUNCTUS OFFICIO.
Full price of land having been paid and sale deed executed and
registered in favour of tenant---Government and its functionaries, of held, cannot
retrace steps and reclaim [PLD 1978 Lahore 1146].
5. WIDOW BECOMES ABSOLUTE OWNER
Widow purchasing proprietary rights from Government before
commencement of Colonization of Government lands (Punjab) (Amendment) Act,
1944, -- Becomes absolute owner – Deed of sale not necessary – Date of
deposit and acceptance by Government of purchase money is the date of
acquiring proprietary rights [PLD 1956 Lahore 94].
6. PURCHASE PRICE CAN BE DEPOSITED WITHOUT GETTING
PERMISSION OF COLLECTOR.

57
[CGL ACT, 1912]
Purchase money permissible to be deposited even without obtaining prior
[Section 16]
sanction of Collector and once full price paid and other conditions full filled
proprietary rights automatically stand transferred subject to certain conditions set
forth in conveyance deed and schedule-II of Act V of 1912--- Respondent having
acquired proprietary rights after payment of entire price and ceased to be
governed by provisions of Act V of 1912, held, fully competent to alienate his
share to any one [PLD 1978 (Rev.) 15].
7. SALE OF LAND PRE-EMPTABLE EVEN BEFORE ISSUANCE OF
CONVEYANCE DEED.

Grantee of land under Islamabad Oustees Scheme who had paid the full
price would acquire proprietary rights in the land and sale of such land by the
grantee would be sale of agricultural land which was pre-emptible. [1992 SCMR
1018]
8. EFFECT OF BREACH OF CONDITIONS.
Grant can be cancelled if tenant has committed breach of conditions of
tenancy or defaulted in the payment of installment. Section 15 very clearly
envisages that a purchaser of the government land who has been placed in
possession of the said land shall be deemed to be a tenant of such land until the
full amount of the purchase money with any interest due thereon has been paid
and the other conditions set forth in the statement of the conditions of sale issued
by the Collector have been fulfilled. [1991 SCMR 2415]
Before executing a sale deed and conferring proprietary rights, Collector
to see that purchase money paid and conditions of sale fulfilled---Collector has
no jurisdiction to intervene after conferment of proprietary rights even though
there has been breach of some condition of sale deed. [PLD 1983 Lahore 294]
Appellant though paying up full amount of purchase money yet not
fulfilling basic condition of being a hereditary lambardar---Appellant, held, rightly
found to be deemed a tenant of land and not qualified to acquire proprietary
rights of same. [1975 SCMR 440]
Once the conditions of a tenancy obtained by sale or otherwise have
been complied with and full proprietary rights acquired by the execution and
registration of a deed of conveyance, the purchaser ceases to be a tenant and
becomes an owner. Therefore, section 15 of the Colonization of Government
Lands Act cannot be applied against him. If the Revenue officer wishes to take
any action against him or cancellation of the sale, he will have to go to Civil Court
and cannot do so by resorting to the Colonization of Government Lands Act [PLD
1959 W.P. Revenue 167].
16. False information by a tenant. If any person who after
the commencement of this Act has been put in possession of
land in a colony as a tenant shall have given false information

58
[CGL ACT, 1912]
[Sections 16 & 17]
intending or having reason to believe that any 25[servant of the
State] may be thereby deceived regarding his qualifications to
become a tenant, he shall be deemed to have committed a
breach of the conditions of his tenancy.
Proviso deleted vide Punjab Ordinance XII of 1978.
COMMENTS
Plaintiff was transferee of suit land from its original allottee, but Board of
Revenue cancelled allotment of original allottee without notice to the plaintiff who
was subsequent vendee---Suit filed by plaintiff was concurrently decreed by
Courts below including the High Court [2008 SCMR 749].
Auction of lease of State land---Petitioner had claimed that he participated
in the auction and despite offering highest bid, same had not been approved and
Authority had ordered reduction of the land---Petitioner had failed to place on
record comparative statement to show that he was the highest bidder--Authority
had rightly refused to give approval of bid offered by petitioner in view of the
complaint of residents of locality that no publicity was given in respect of auction
of the land---Mere participation in auction proceedings by petitioner would not
create vested right in him to obtain lease subjected to auction--- No legal ground,
thus, was available to interfere by Board of Revenue with concurrent findings of
Courts below [2000 YLR 2964].
Order of Colony Authorities based on finding that petitioners had obtained
a temporary lease of disputed land for three years but later on got their names
entered by fraudulent means as allottees under Ejected Tenants Scheme---Not
open to interference in writ jurisdiction. [NLR 1982 Revenue 57]
Leave to appeal granted to consider whether omission of the proviso in
1978 could affect the order of cancellation which had been passed 11 years
earlier and whether after the respondents had been found guilty of fraud and
misrepresentation, could they be permitted to seek the equitable relief of
declaration under S.42 of Specific Relief Act from a Civil Court
[1989 SCMR 1528]
17. Exchange. Subject to any orders that he may receive
from the 26[Executive District Officer (Revenue)], the Collector
may allow any tenant to exchange the whole or any part of his
tenancy for other land in the colony, had the land so taken in
exchange shall, in the absence of any special condition to the
contrary recorded in writing by the Collector, be deemed to be

25
Substituted for the words “Officers of the Crown”, by West Pakistan Laws (Adaptation) Order 1964
26
Substituted for the words “Commissioner” by the CGL (Punjab Amendment) Ord. No.XXXII of 2001.

59
[CGL ACT, 1912]

held on the same conditions and subject to the same


obligations as the surrendered land was held. [Section 17]

COMMENTS
Grievance of appellant was that while his application for proprietary rights
was still pending before Revenue authorities, the land in dispute stood
transferred to respondent by Provincial Government---Validity---Disputed land
stood transferred in the name of respondent by way of exchange allowed by
Provincial Government, therefore, Revenue authorities could not sit over the
order of government and decide the fate of land by extending lease of appellant
with retrospective effect after a lapse of 17/18 years even if the appellant was
lessee of land or happened to be in possession of some portion thereof [2007
SCMR 905].
Leave to appeal was granted by Supreme Court to consider whether after
conferment of proprietary rights to respondent, no exchange could be permitted
by Revenue authorities and that land in dispute could not be treated to be
available till final decision was made in judicial remedies available to petitioner
that he as allottee/ Patadar of such land under Temporary Cultivation Scheme
was entitled to conferment of proprietary rights [2007 SCMR 905].
Order of exchange was passed by Commissioner in casual and cursory
manner without diligent application of mind by ignoring the fact that state land
could not have been exchanged with private land proprietary rights whereof were
obtained by appellants about thirteen years back and mutations were also
attested in their favour and duly registered in Register Haqdaran Zamin---Closed
and past transactions could not have been reopened by the Commissioner
having no locus standi whatsoever which amounted to misuse and abuse of
authority never conferred upon him---Commissioner had ignored that only state
land could be exchanged for state land and therefore, order passed by him was
in violation of S. 17 of Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912---
Supreme Court directed the authorities to hand over the possession of land
originally allocated to appellants and appellants were directed to vacate the
possession of state land [2007 SCMR 1525].
Applied for exchange of proprietary rights to Board of Revenue---Request
was considered under policy and rules---Assailed---Exchanged after proprietary
rights---Held---Collector was empowered to allow exchange in the same colony
land purchased at auction cannot be exchanged without express order of the
government which would be sought in exceptional cases---No application for
exchange can be entertained once proprietary rights have been acquired in a
grant [PLJ 2007 Lahore 724].
Exchange of land allotted to respondent at other place with that of
disputed land regarding which petitioner’s case for grant of proprietary rights was
pending before Revenue Authorities---Validity---Contention of petitioner was that
after conferment of pr and execution of sale deed by Revenue Authorities in

60
[CGL ACT, 1912]
favour of respondent in respect of land allotted to him at other place, such land
become privately owned land, which could not be allowed by [Section Revenue17]
Authorities to be exchanged with disputed land as same could not be treated as
available land till final decision in judicial remedies available to petitioner
respecting his claim that he as allottee/ Patadar of disputed land under
Temporary Cultivation Scheme was entitled to conferment of proprietary rights---
Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider, inter alia, such contentions
[2006 SCMR 890].
Petitioners intended to exchange their proprietary land in one district with
state land situated in other district but the authorities did not allow the
exchange---Petitioners were proprietors of land and not tenants, thus S. 17 of
Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912, was not attracted to their
case, as they had ceased to be tenant of land---Collector was empowered to
allow exchange in the same colony only but the petitioners had applied for
exchange of their land from one colony to another colony and only Government
enjoyed such power---Request of petitioners was declined by Board of Revenue
having the authority of Government---Land purchased at auction of otherwise
could not be exchanged under paragraph No.364 of Colonies Instructions
provided in Colony Manual, without express order of Government, which should
only be sought in exceptional cases---No application for exchange could be
entertained once proprietary rights were acquired in a grant [2006 CLC 543].
Respondent who was allotted land, exchanged said land with equivalent
area of state land with appellants through registered exchange deed and
appellants were delivered possession of such land—Board of Revenue cancelled
the exchange deed without any notice or intimation to appellants.—Orders
passed by Board of Revenue and those of High Court maintaining cancellation of
allotment of land without either impleading appellants as a party or hearing them,
could not be upheld. [1999 SCMR 2774]
Certain area of land out of area purchased by vendee through auction,
having been found to be under Abadi, graveyard, school and mosque, Board of
Revenue granted other State land situated in same village to vendee as alternate
land in lieu of area found in Abadi, graveyard, etc: --Later on certain portion of
land so granted to vendee was leased out to petitioner-Committee for purpose of
establishment of a Feeder-Market, but when vendee agitated matter of lease of
his land, Board of Revenue cancelled that lease holding on the ground that land
in dispute had already been granted to vendee/respondent ---Order cancelling
lease was challenged on ground that case being of exchange of land, only
Collector was competent to sanction same and Board of Revenue which had
granted land in favour of vendee had no jurisdiction to do so---Land in dispute
which was granted to vendee as alternate land in lieu of his equivalent area
which was found under Abadi and graveyard etc. could not be said to have been
given to vendee in exchange as contended by petitioner-Committee---Order
granting land in dispute to vendee in lieu of land purchased by him in auction, not
shown to be suffering from any legal infirmity, could not be interfered with in

61
[CGL ACT, 1912]
Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court especially when that order was just and
[Section 18]
fair in facts and circumstances of case [1993 CLC 2327]
Allotment of land. Cancellation of. Land originally leased out to lessee
under 15-years’ Lease Scheme by drawing lots, being unfit for cultivation due to
Sem and Thur, was finally exchanged with land in dispute. Lessee, after such
exchange, applied for conferment of proprietary rights in respect of land so
exchanged in his favour. Application of lessee was finally dismissed in revision
by Board of Revenue holding that land in dispute being Charagah, initial
allotment in favour of lessee, was irregular. Order of Board of Revenue was
upheld by High Court. Order of Board of Revenue having proceeded on a
misunderstanding of allotment in favour of lessee that it was irregular which was
not the case the appeal was accepted and case remanded for fresh decision in
accordance with law. [1993 SCMR 1358]
Where Revenue Officer was specially empowered under S. 17,
Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912, to allow exchanges of
land, his order to allow exchange of specific land, could not be treated as illegal.
[1992 SCMR 993]
Member, Board of Revenue, in his discretion may provide him with
alternate land. [1992 SCMR 1163].
Land, vesting in Government viz “Baqia Sarkar” un-allotted land was
allowed to be exchanged with “Charagah Land” which had earlier been leased
out to tenant and proprietary rights of such exchanged “Baqia Sarkar” land were
allowed to tenant by Board of Revenue in revision [PLD 1987 Revenue 42].
Stranger to exchange transaction-Such exchange, held, could not affect
rights of stranger to exchange transaction [1985 MLD 1574].

18. Rights of tenant not to be attached or sold. None of


the rights or interests vested in a tenant from Government of
land to which this Act applies shall be attached or sold in
execution of a decree or order of any court or in any insolvency
proceedings.
COMMENTS
Departmental authorities functioning under the Act having passed the
order of recovery of Tawan, no court or insolvency proceedings would be
involved in the matter and in its terms S. 18 would not be applicable [PLD 1990
Supreme Court 736]
S.18—Applicability—Not applicable to lands allotted to co-operative
farming societies as members thereof are not given any tenancy rights directly by
Collector. [1984 Law Notes (Lahore) 1123]

62
[CGL ACT, 1912]
Sanction to alienate under S. 19 not obtained from competent authority---
Decree of Civil Court, held, could not be executed in view of provisions of S. 19
[Section 19]
read with Ss. 18 & 36. [PLD 1983 Rev. 53]
Properties exempted from attachment or sale under Act---Held, cannot be
allowed to be treated properties and proceeded against by Courts or authorities
for benefit of creditors or decree holders. [PLD 1978 Lahore 429]

19. Transfers of rights to be void. Except as provided in


section 17, none of the rights or interests vested in a tenant by
or under the Government Tenants (Punjab) Act, 1893, or this
Act, shall, without the consent in writing of the 27[Executive
District Officer (Revenue)], or of such officer as he may by
written order empower in this behalf, be transferred or charged
by any sale, exchange, gift, will, mortgage or other private
contract, other than a sub-lease for not more than one year in
the case of a tenant who has not acquired a right of occupancy,
and seven years in the case of the tenant who has acquired a
right of occupancy. Any such transfer or charge made without
such consent in writing shall be void, and if (after the
commencement of this Act) the transferee has obtained
possession, he shall be ejected under the orders of the
Collector.
Provided that the right of sub-letting conferred by this
section shall not release any tenant from a condition requiring
him to reside in the estate in which his tenancy is situated.
COMMENTS
SYNOPSIS

1. Transfer of tenancy rights- 2. Agreement to sell-Validity.


Permission thereof.
3. Person in possession without 4. Specific performance.
permission.
5. Occupancy Tenants. 6. Permission under section 19 valid
for six months.
7. Sale of the grant of 8. Permission by Collector-Not
proprietary rights-Not
27
Substituted for the words “Commissioner” by the CGL (Punjab Amendment) Ord. No.XXXII of 2001.

63
[CGL ACT, 1912]
prohibited. appealable before Commissioner.
[Section 19]
9. Oral agreement of sale. 10. Sub-leasing.
11. Transaction under section
19-Pre-emptible.

1. TRANSFER OF TENANCY RIGHTS-PROVISION THEREOF


Respondent before obtaining permission u/s 19 of Act, 1912 made
discreet inquiry about the title of petitioner by inspecting the revenue record but
proceedings conducted by colony authorities—Ownership of property in dispute
was still within provincial government and such remained so till when petitioner
obtained sale deed from Provincial Government—Held, Mere inspection of
revenue record showing, respondent as original tenant of the state land,
therefore, only inspection of revenue record was not sufficient to hold respondent
as bona fide purchaser [PLJ 2008 Lah. 173].
Land in dispute was in the ownership of Provincial Government and
deceased father of defendants could not sell the same without permission of the
authorities under S.19 of Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act,
1912--- Lower Appellate Court granted decree of the land which was owned by
Provincial Government and no contract was entered into by plaintiffs and the
government [2008 CLC 795].
Plaintiff could not seek enforceability of agreement earlier to period when
defendant was not authorized by Collector to transfer suit-land---Plaintiff had
never abandoned cause of enforceability of agreement, which was totally
different and had no nexus with dispute raised in earlier suit for injunction--Both
suits had emanated from different causes and had nothing in common---
Subsequent relief of specific performance was independent of earlier relief of
injunction---Bar of O.II, R.2, C.P.C. was not applicable to subsequent suit for
specific performance of agreement [2008 YLR 2277].
Land normally was granted under the Government Land Policy including
the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912, for a specific purpose,
like Poultry or on Wahi Chahi basis; and for a limited period extending from 10
years to 30 years etc., and that too on nominal charges---No ownership right was
created in favour of the grantee in the granted land and grantee had no right to
transfer the same to any person or to mortgage with any Authority or Bank etc.---
Even the leasehold right could not be transferred to anybody---If a grantee would
fail to comply with the conditions of grant, then he should return the land and on
his failure the government should itself invoke agreed conditions and cause
reversion of said land and thereafter could grant same to new applicant, but
transfer inter-se between the individuals etc. should not be permitted otherwise
the gist and very purpose of scheme of grant would fail [2008 YLR 2651].
Cooperative Society was duty bound to ensure that property had
devolved upon the legal heirs but Cooperative Society did not fulfill its obligations
and violated law and procedure---Joint possession of plaintiffs and defendant

64
[CGL ACT, 1912]
was established on record and further section 19 of Colonization of Government
Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 also confirmed this position---Legal heirs could not be
[Section 19]
non-suited on question of limitation [2007 CLC 31].
Transfer of tenancy rights---Essentials---Transfer of tenancy rights under
S.19 of Act of 1912 is different from sale after obtaining full proprietary rights in a
tenancy---Rejection of petition for transfer of rights on the ground that same was
intended to defeat realization of Government dues on transfer, needs
reconsideration in that, Government dues on transfer at the time of conveyance
deed would have to be paid by purchaser however, requiring tenants or their
legal heirs to first acquire proprietary rights, get conveyance deed executed and
then transfer tenancy rights through registered deed, would defeat object for
which S. 19 was provided in Act of 1912---Tenant can seek transfer of tenancy at
any time after declaration of eligibility for conferment of proprietary rights, without
even payment of any cost of land or at any stage thereafter, as be wines to
acquire right and vested interest in tenancy at the time [PLJ 2003 Revenue 10].
Dominant discretion of Government to select person as transferee of
colony land is so important that even original allottee cannot transfer or sell such
land to third person unless permitted by Collector in terms of S. 19 of Act V of
1912---Right to acquire or purchase property in colony area is right specifically
permitted by Government and such right cannot be substituted by ignoring
provisions of S. 19 of Act V of 1912. Thus, so long as any property in colony area
was owned by Government and not by a private party, any transaction done
under S. 19 of Act V of 1912, would not be pre-emptible. Besides, owing to non-
withdrawal by Government of Punjab of Notification No.74, dated 12.06.1944,
issued by the then Government of Bahawalpur, land in colony area falling within
the ambit of Act V of 1912 remains non-pre-emptible. [PLJ 2003 SC 649]
Title of property cannot be conferred to a third person by allottee of
Government land without obtaining proprietary rights due to prohibition contained
in S. 19. Sale through registered or unregistered sale deed would not be
validated till the acquisition of proprietary rights by vendor allottee---Concurrent
finding of fact that sale transaction was not hit by S. 19 even if erroneous would
not attract interference by Supreme Court when it does not suffer from any legal
defect. [NLR 2002 Revenue SC 169]
Sale and transfer of State land before acquisition of proprietary rights by
allottee/ vendor. Validity. Such sale would not take effect and its operation would
remain suspended till the acquisition of proprietary rights by vendor. Such
transfer would become operative on acquisition of proprietary rights by vendor.
Protection provided under of Transfer of Property Act, 1882, would be available
to title of such transferee under the sale, who would become owner of land from
date of acquiring title by vendor/ transferor. [2002 SCMR 1821]
Tenants holding land under Temporary Lease Scheme not containing
provision for conferment of proprietary rights or tenant holding a scheduled
tenancy or a lease holder of State land for a poultry farm, fish farm, nursery etc.
would not fall within the ambit of S.19 of the Act as no vested interest or right

65
[CGL ACT, 1912]
could be said to have created in such tenants/lease holders warranting transfer
of tenancy rights onward to another person---Cases of cultivating State land
[Section 19]
leased out for specific purpose to a Department of Federal or Provincial
Government or a Company were not covered as tenants of State land---Cases of
tenants under Scheme containing an inbuilt concept of conferment of proprietary
rights to the extent provided in the Scheme could be covered subject to
continuance of tenancies as per terms and conditions governing them
[2002 YLR 2414].
S. 19. Bar on transfer of tenancies contained in Punjab Governments
letter (dated 30.10.1974) would be ultra vires and have no force being in violation
of S.19 [NLR 1992 SCJ 433].
Tenant who had not paid up all the installments towards purchase price of
land could not sell the said land or empower any other person to sell the same
without obtaining consent in writing from the Revenue Officer as contemplated
under S. 19 of the Act [1991 SCMR 2415].
Petitioner was allotted land under the Well Sinking Scheme---Transfer of
such land by the allottee was prohibited under Condition 20 of the grant as well
as S. 19 of the Act without prior permission of the Development Authority---
Petitioner sold the land to respondent, through an agreement, received
consideration and delivered possession to her, but challenged the transaction
being in violation of Condition 20. Ss. 19, 21. S. 19 of the Act, Held, petitioner
was not in a position to avail of the provisions of Condition 20, in circumstances,
which could have only been availed of by the grantee of the land i.e.
Development Authority [1989 SCMR 135]
Succession would be determined in accordance with Muslim “Personal
Law---Nominee of tenant could not inherit such rights to the exclusion of heirs of
deceased. [1989 CLC 110]
Sanction to alienate under section 19 not obtained from competent
authority---Decree of Civil Court, held, could not be executed in view of
provisions of S. 19 read with Ss. 18 & 36. [PLD 1983 Rev. 53]
Transfer made in violation of prohibitory instructions contained in memo:
dated 20.03.1972---Void not only as against Commissioner but also as between
parties to transaction---Rights of tenancy acquired on basis of such transfer---Not
enforceable. [1978 RLR 44]
Allottees accepting a big sum as consideration and passing over
possession of lot to petitioner’s attorney—Alienation and transfer, held,
completed—Fact that alienation could not be incorporated in revenue records
due to absence of Government’s permission—of no consequence—Allotment in
circumstances cancelled and transfer of lot, in view of financial loss and mental
agony suffered by him, sanctioned in favour of petitioner. [PLD 1975 Rev. 62]
Section 19—Permission to sale necessary while grantee is still a tenant
although sale deed was executed and entire price paid – permission may be
given ex-post facto [PLD 1959 W. P (Rev) 99].

66
[CGL ACT, 1912]
Tenant cannot transfer land without consent of Commissioner---Transfer
[Section 19]
without sanction is void. [PLD 1958 (W.P.) Lahore 340]
Tenant cannot transfer land without consent of Commissioner---Transfer
without sanction is void---Civil Court has no jurisdiction to quest consent of
Collector. [PLD 1958 (W.P.) Lahore 340]
Validity of sanction not attacked in plaint---Nevertheless objection as to
validity, being question of law, cannot be ignored---Sanction must be prior---
Subsequent sanction would not validate transfer from date on which it was
effected. [PLD 1954 Lahore 253]
2. AGREEMENT TO SELL-VALIDITY
Agreement to sell corpus of land is permissible but tenancy rights cannot
be sold without sanction of the government, likewise a sale deed cannot be
executed---Where the parties had executed an agreement to sell wherein a sum
of Rs.14,900/- was paid and balance of Rs.100/- was kept in abeyance and was
required to be paid on the grant of proprietary rights, such document was not a
sale deed, therefore, the rigours and embargo of S. 19, Colonization of
Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 would not be applicable to the transaction
[2006 CLC 1253].
Agreement which was merely executory in nature and did not amount to a
conveyance was not violative of section 19 of the Act---Contention that object of
agreement was unlawful under S.23 of Contract Act, 1872 because the same
would defeat provisions of S.19 of Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab)
Act, 1912 was repelled having no force [2006 YLR 896].
Plaintiffs and defendant being brothers jointly purchased state land in
defendant’s name---Defendant through agreement acknowledged half share of
plaintiff and delivered him his share of land---Plaintiff filed suit when later on
dispute arose between two brothers---Defendant could not back out from
agreement by pleading that same was violative of S. 19 of the said Act---Equities
were in favour of plaintiff, who had successfully substantiated execution of
agreement by defendant [2004 SCMR 1059].
Permission from the Collector for agreement to sell under S.19,
Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 is not mandatory [2003
CLC 1404].
Execution of agreement to sell prior to obtaining proprietary rights---
Scope---Specific performance of agreement to sell was postponed to a date
when the grantees would acquire the proprietary rights---Such agreement to sell
was not violative of either the express provisions of S. 19 of Colonization of
Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912, or of the public policy behind such
statutory provisions [2003 CLC 1670].
Sale and transfer of ownership rights of Colony Land without prior
sanction in terms of S. 19 either through registered or unregistered sale deed
would not be a sale. It would only be a contract of sale which would not be hit by

67
[CGL ACT, 1912]
provisions of S. 19 and would be enforceable in law as sale after acquisition of
[Section 19]
proprietary rights by vendee/ allottee. [NLR 2002 Revenue SC 169, NLR 2002
Revenue SC 169, 1994 SCMR 470, LN 1986 SC 41, 2002 SCMR 1821, 1989
SCMR 604, PLD 1966 SC 612]
Grantee did not sell rights and interest in the property while executing
agreement to sell but only promised to alienate the same in favour of plaintiff on
acquiring the proprietary rights---Such agreement did not itself create any charge
on suit property, rather a right to sue accrued---Such an agreement was not hit
by provisions of S. 19 of Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912.
[1999 YLR 958]
Where Provincial Government was the owner of such land, any
agreement with regard to such land, executed by the person in possession/
grantee was not a void agreement. [1999 YLR 2410]
Agreement to sell corpus of land after getting proprietary rights---
Permission under S. 19, Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912
when required---Agreement to sell would not create any right or title on
property---Such agreement would be effective after proprietary rights had been
acquired---Provision of S. 19, Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act,
1912, would bar transfer of tenancy rights through sale, exchange, gift, will,
mortgage or other private contract---Agreement to sell corpus of property to
become effective after obtaining proprietary rights, there was no necessity of
getting permission under S. 19, Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act,
1912. [1997 CLC 1735]
Agreeing to sell corpus could not amount to sale deed but could be
termed as agreement to sell in spite of the fact that transfer or had received full
amount and had delivered possession thereof---Transfer in question was thus not
in violation of S.19, Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912---Land
in question, being situated in colony area, transferor had agreed to sell the
corpus of land in question and not his tenancy rights. Document in question,
agreeing to sell corpus could not amount to sale deed but could be termed as
agreement to sell in spite of the fact that transferor had received full amount and
had delivered possession thereof---Transfer in question was thus, not in violation
of S. 19 [1994 SCMR 470].
No evidence on record was available to show that non-Muslims/ allottees
of land had not paid the price of the land to Province of Punjab before migration
to India---Persons permanently settled on such land by Settlement Authorities as
full owners were competent to execute the agreement to sell such land without
seeking permission from the Collector under S. 19 of the Act---Agreement to sell
the colony land is not violative of S. 19 of the Act as such agreement does not
create any vested right of executants in the property. [1994 MLD 1630, NLR
1993 Revenue 4, 1981 SCMR 993, 1989 SCMR 604].
It has authoritatively been settled by Supreme Court that want of sanction
under section 19 of Act prior to execution of an agreement of sale, is not fatal

68
[CGL ACT, 1912]
and a decree for specific performance of such a contract can be granted---
[Section 19]
Petition dismissed. [PLJ 1993 Lahore 139]
Allottee or a purchaser of state land attains status of a tenant only after
he has been placed in possession of land by order or with permission of
Collector. Agreement which does not indicate that purchaser had been put in
possession of state land, much less with permission or by an order of Collector,
would not be hit by S. 19. [NLR 1992 Revenue 14]
Government of Punjab letter No.6932-74/ 5217-CI, dated 20.10.1974---
Bar to transfer of tenancies contained in the Punjab Government’s letter dated
30.10.1974 being in violation of S. 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands
(Punjab) Act, 1912 would be ultra vires the Act and have no force. [1992 SCMR
1018]
Bar of S. 19 would succeed only if it is shown that intention of agreement
was to defeat law. It would not apply to agreement stipulating that proprietary
rights in land would be conveyed after they are obtained from government. [NLR
1992 AC 19]
Plaintiff’s suit for declaration on basis of agreement to sell dismissed by
Trial Court as also his appeal---High Court, in revision, however, decreed
plaintiff’s suit---Point of real contest which was before High Court and had again
been raised in petition for leave to appeal, was that proprietary rights having not
been obtained at time of agreement in plaintiff’s favour said agreement could not
be made a basis for civil action either against the vendors or against the
defendants, because no sanction was obtained under S. 19, Colonization of
Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912, before the execution of agreement in
favour of plaintiff---High Court’s finding being unexceptionable leave to appeal
was refused. [1991 SCMR 1785]
Section 19 imposes restrictions on transfer of rights or interests of tenant
without consent in writing of the Commissioner or such officer as may be
empowered by him in this behalf, by way of sale, exchange, gift, will, mortgage or
any other private contract excepting a sub-lease for not more than one year in
case of tenant who has not acquired a right of occupancy. Section 19 further
envisages in very unequivocal terms that such transfer or charge made without
such consent in writing shall be void and if the transferee has obtained
possession he shall be ejected under the orders of the Collector. This section is
concerned with two questions which are firstly, that a tenant cannot alienate
without consent of the Commissioner and secondly, that such alienation is void.
This restriction is to remain operative during the subsistence of tenancy rights
and shall come to an end as soon as proprietary rights are acquired because
after acquisition of proprietary rights, statement of conditions would not govern
the rights of the person who has become the proprietor. A transfer which is
prohibited by section 19 is void as between the parties to the transaction. An
agreement reached before any interest is acquired in the Government land is

69
[CGL ACT, 1912]
outside the scope of the Act. There is no bar to a person agreeing to transfer or
[Section 19]
acquire jointly proprietary rights [1991 SCMR 2415].
An agreement made between parties to share land before it was, auction,
not hit by provisions of this section as the purchaser in auction had not become a
tenant within the meaning of S. 10 (4) & S. 15 of the Act. [1991 Law Notes
(Lahore) (1116)]
Mere agreement to transfer one’s rights in land, held, was not hit by
provisions of S. 19 of Act v of 1912, -- Transfer deed, i.e. transfer of rights in
praesenti in land however, would be hit by provisions of S. 19 of the Act [1988
PLD Lahore 390].
Where requirements of S. 19 Act, 1912 were adequately met by order of
collector, it was not necessary for courts to go behind sanction order to find out
whether instructions issued by Authorities on subject had been followed---
Transfer made without such consent in writing would be void – where requisite
sanction was obtained after execution of agreement of sale, prohibition contained
in s. 19 of Act V of 1912 would not affect such agreement [1986 MLD 1936].
Agreement to sell land by a grantee of land who had yet to acquire
proprietary rights under the Act, not violative of the provisions of this section and
as such enforceable through suit for specific performance. [1985 Law Notes
(SC) (41)]
S. 19 expressly prohibited transfer of rights by tenant without consent
from officer empowered---Will executed in respect of tenancy land, in violation of
S. 19, held, was void even as between parties to the deed. [1984 CLC 2141]
Agreement to sell anticipated grant of land – Grantees of Government lands
executing an agreement to sell land – sale deed to be executed after grantees-
vendors acquired proprietary rights in land and not before---Document in
question, held, did not in terms violate express words of S. 19 of Act v of 1912.
[p. 997]4 [1981 SCMR 993].
Cancellation of allotment of land on request of allottee---Order of High
Court that such cancellation could not be challenged by prospective transferee of
land in dispute on basis of agreement of sale entered into with allottee---Held,
cannot be taken exception to. [1981 SCMR 998]
Agreement that sale shall be made after original allottee had been
transferred proprietary rights---Not hit by S.19. [NLR 1981 Revenue 64]
Grantee of land on Bara conditions---Agreement by, for transfer of his
rights in land---Falls within mischief of S. 19---Such agreement without written
consent of Commissioner, Collector or any officer to transfer agreement---Void---
Agreement in contravention of S. 19---Cannot be recognized by Colony
Authorities, on whose records grantee continues to be grantee of disputed land
despite transfer of his rights in favour of transferee---Grantee, and not transferee,
entitled to obtain proprietary rights on fulfillment of conditions of grant---Plea as
to enforceability of agreement between grantee and transferee after severance of

70
[CGL ACT, 1912]
unenforceable clause of agreement, held in circumstances of [Section case, not
19]
sustainable---Entire agreement bad being in violation of S. 19---Stipulation qua
transfer of proprietary rights after acquisition---Cannot be separately enforced.
[1978 RLR 57]
State land---Transfer without Collector’s permission---Deed merely
reciting already existing jointness in expenses and usufruct and promising
handing over possession of land if promise disagreed to existing joint
possession---Not creative of any right in land, hence, not affecting any transfer.
Agreement deed being, acknowledgment of oral agreement to acquire right, held,
perfectly valid plaintiff became co-sharer in land on acquisition of proprietary
rights and agreement not hit by S. 19. [PLD 1976 Lahore 923]
Section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act does not prohibit
any every kind of agreement but only agreement which purport of transfer or to
charge the rights and interest vested in a tenant holding land under the said Act
[PLD 1966 Supreme Court 612].
3. PERSON IN POSSESSION WITHOUT PERMISSION
Transfer of tenancy rights by way of gift claimed by brother of deceased
tenant—Validity—Period of tenancy had already expired—Deceased tenant had
neither paid 1/4th lease money in time nor cultivated land—Deceased tenant had
other brothers and sisters, who had not come forward with such claim—
Deceased tenant without written permission of competent authority could not
transfer any right or interest in State land—Such transferee not being a lessee or
tenant could not take benefit of S.24 of CGL Act, 1912—Claim of transferee, held
was, not maintainable. [2008 SCMR 291]
Person in possession of land in violation of S. 19, could be ejected from
land by Collector but such ejectment should be for benefit of Government and not
for benefit of person who might have himself committed breach of said
provisions. [PLD 1984 Karachi 413]
Agreement to sell by lessee of state land---Does not confer any
possessory or proprietary rights upon purchaser of land from lessee---Any such
stipulation without consent in writing by Collector is void and cannot be acted
upon---Possession taken by purchaser under agreement to sell by lessee of state
land---Cannot be protected by Civil Courts by grant of declaratory relief---
Dismissal of purchaser’s suit for declaration of ownership and for perpetual
injunction restraining respondent from interference with their possession---
Unexceptionable. [NLR 1982 Revenue 47]
Unless there be a possibility of creation of relationship of landlord and
tenant between the Government and the persons said to be holding adversely to
the tenant. This view is confirmed by the legal provision that transfer of
possession in contravention of provisions of section 19 is void and a person in
unauthorised possession can be evicted by use of force under section 32 [PLD
1978 Lahore 1228].

71
[CGL ACT, 1912]
Transfer of possession in contravention of S. 19 is void and unauthorised
[Section 19]
possessor can be evicted under S. 32. [PLJ 1978 Lahore 475]
4. SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE.
Execution of agreement to sell was not denied by defendants but suit was
dismissed by Trial Court on the ground that it was violative of provisions of
paragraph 24 of Land Reforms Regulations, 1972 (M.L.R. 115) and S.19 of
Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912---Lower Appellate Court
allowed appeal against judgment and decree passed by Trial Court, resultantly
the suit was decreed in favour of plaintiff---Judgment and decree passed by
Lower Appellate Court was maintained by High Court ---Appeal was dismissed
[2007 SCMR 1332]
Plaintiffs alleged that before grant of proprietary rights to defendant, he
entered into agreement to sell the suit-land to them but after grant of the same,
he sold suit-land to another person---Suit filed by plaintiffs was decreed only to
the extent of alternate relief---Judgment and decree passed by Trial Court were
maintained by Lower Appellate Court as well by High Court [2007 SCMR 1047].
Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell land---Such suit, after
the acquisition of proprietary rights was not only competent but the same could
legally be decreed on the proof of agreement to sell [2007 CLC 1309]
Defendants did not deny execution of agreement to sell in favour of
plaintiff but asserted that, being in violation of S.19 of Colonization of'
Government Land (Punjab) Act, 1912, the agreement to sell was void---Trial
Court decreed the suit on ground that defendants/vendees were not bona fide
purchasers without notice---Appeal filed thereagainst was also dismissed by
lower Appellate Court---Validity---Plaintiff's agreement to sell with
defendant/allottee and receipt of sale consideration by the latter were proved and
established on record---Agreement simpliciter along with payment of
consideration and delivery of' possession was not to attract mischief of S.19 of
Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912--Appeals, filed by
defendants were dismissed [2006 MLD 1858]
Relief by way of specific performance was discretionary and it was not
incumbent upon Courts below to grant such relief even where it was lawful to do
so but impugned judgment showed that such relief was only declined on ground
that the agreement was violative of S.19 of Colonization of Government Lands
(Punjab Act, 1912---Trial Court did not deliberate on its discretion to refuse
specific performance, therefore, its finding was reversed by High Court and
appellant was held to be entitled to a decree for specific performance of
agreement [2006 YLR 896].
Proprietary rights in respect of suit land having not yet been transferred in
favour of defendants, a decree for specific performance could not have been
passed in favour of plaintiffs---Specific performance of agreement as per terms of
said agreements, would need to await till conferment of proprietary rights on
defendants, especially when parties themselves being cognizant of that

72
[CGL ACT, 1912]
limitation, had agreed that enforcement of agreements would be postponed till
[Section 19]
conferment of proprietary rights on defendants [2006 CLC 689].
Suit for specific performance of agreement filed by vendee against
allottee/ vendor who had acquired ownership rights in respect of land in dispute,
was not hit by section 19 colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912
and court was not debarred to decree suit in favour of vendee – Agreement of
sale did not fix date or period for finalization of sale in dispute, instead it agreed
to complete sale on conferment of proprietary rights in land on demand of
promisee/vendee – In absence of any evidence to show that performance of
agreement was demanded and refused at a point of time exceeding three years
from date of suit, suit was no barred by time [1994 CLC 1576 and 1994 MLD
1671].
Predecessor of appellants had acquired proprietary rights of suit land on
payment of necessary consideration, and at time of execution of agreement to
sell and decree for specific performance, he was full fledged owner of suit
properly and competent to sell same under law. [PLJ 1993 SC 150, 1993 SCMR
145, PLD 1986 Supreme Court 70, PLJ 1986 SC 154]
Benefit of S. 19 could be granted notwithstanding the fact that it was an
oral agreement---When the (alleged) agreement was entered into the proprietary
rights had not been granted to the allottee/ grantee and these were subsequently
granted to his successors---Bar in S. 19 being against the alienation and not
against the agreement, agreement could be enforced through specific
performance after the grant of proprietary rights. [1992 SCMR 1510]
Disputes with regard to title between private parties are to be settled and
adjudicated upon in the Civil Courts and raising such plea cannot stop Revenue
Authorities from performing their functions under section 19 and 32 of the Act
unless stay order is brought from the Civil Court. [1991 SCMR 2415]
Rule that a purchaser without obtaining sanction U/S 19 cannot enforce
contract---Does not dis-entitle purchaser to successfully defend suit filed against
him by tenant/ alienor though state can attack transaction for want of
permission---Held: Alenor/ tenant cannot rely upon his own illegal act in entering
sale transaction without permission U/S 19 in view of principle of pari delicto.
[NLR 1988 Revenue 36]
Acceptance by allottee of a big sum as consideration with passing over of
possession of lot to petitioner’s attorney—completes alienation and transfer—
Fact that alienation could not be incorporated in revenue records for want of
Government’s permission—Immaterial [PLJ 1975 Tr.C. (Rev.) 234].
5. OCCUPANCY TENANTS.
Pre-emption decree qua sale of occupancy rights in state land---
Executable without permission of Commissioner. [NLR 1984 Revenue 107]
Transfer of tenancy by occupancy tenant under Government---Transferee
privately admitting a co-sharer in tenancy on the latter’s contributing a share of
purchase money---Transfer to co-share, held, void. [PLD 1951 Lahore 177]

73
[CGL ACT, 1912]
[Section 19]

6. PERMISSION U/S 19 VALID FOR SIX MONTHS.


Collector passed order whereby the permission granted by him was set
aside holding that said permission was only effective for a period of six months.
Period of six months as contained in clause 64 para-iv of Colony Instruction was
merely directory in nature and was primarily for the guidance of the officials and
did not lay down a prescribed period of limitation as was understood under the
law of limitation would not ipso facts nullity the permission. Collector who had
acted as a delegate of the Commissioner, could not exercise any power of re-
calling or revoking the permission once granted by him, especially when he had
no power to review his own order [2002 CLC 639].
7. SALE OF THE GRANT OF PROPRIETARY RIGHTS---NOT
PROHIBITED

Agreement in favour of plaintiff was made in year 1977---Vendor, after


acquiring proprietary rights, sold land to defendant in year, 1979---Plaintiff
thereafter filed suit in year 1979---Trial Court dismissed suit---Appellate Court
decreed suit, which on revision was maintained by High Court by opining that suit
was not time-barred for having been instituted subsequent to acquisition of
proprietary rights on basis of which sale-deed was executed in favour of
defendant; and that agreement to sell was not hit by mischief of S.19 of
Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 [2006 SCMR 1541]
Sale of state land after acquisition of proprietary rights was not prohibited
either in terms of Thal Development Authority Act, 1948 or in terms of S. 19,
Colonization of Government land (Punjab), 1912 [PLD 1994 Lahore 108] .
Price of land having been deposited in 1958 and such fact having been
proved by unrebutted evidence, respondent had become absolute owner of land
the moment he paid the requisite price and his title was not postponed to the
acquisition of conveyance deed---Agreement to sell having been executed by
respondent after he deposited amount for acquisition of proprietary rights, such
agreement did not require consent of Collector under S. 19 of Act V of 1912,
which was applicable only when title vested in government and occupant of such
land wanted to make transfer of tenancy rights. [1991 CLC 2005]
Prior permission for sale. Not necessary in a case where the seller had
become full owner of the land before entering with agreement of sale and the
purchaser was not asking in the suit to be substituted as their tenant. [LN 1988
SC 532 and 1988 SCMR 590]
Property although granted by Government yet remaining vested in it –
Agreement to sell or any sale in respect of such property, held void and
ineffective---Land once vested in grantee after compliance with conditions of
grant even through sale- deed not executed bar of S. 19, held, removed and

74
[CGL ACT, 1912]
agreement to sell executed during period when property vested in Government
becomes effective after vesting of property in grantee [1979 CLC 570].[Section 19]
Respondent having acquired proprietary rights after payment of entire
price and ceased to be governed by provisions of Act V of 1912, held, fully
competent to alienate his share to any one.(P.16)C [PLD 1978 (Rev.) 15].
Bar contained in S. 19---Not applicable once tenant acquires proprietary
rights. [1978 RLR 15]
Payment of full price and fulfillment of other conditions—Confer,
automatically, proprietary rights subject to conditions set forth in conveyance
deed and Schedule II—Further transfer by allottee, after automatic transfer of
proprietary rights, not barred notwithstanding Collector’s order to contrary [1978
RLR 22]
Tenant acquiring proprietary rights---Bar contained in S. 19 held, not
applicable. [PLD 1978 Baghdad-ul-Jadid 71]
8. PERMISSION BY COLLECTOR-NOT APPEALABLE BEFORE
COMMISSIONER.

Collector passing order with holding or granting consent under S. 19 –


Exercises not his own powers but a power exclusively belonging to
Commissioner but delegated to him by Commissioner – Held, not subject to
appeal or revision before Commissioner [PLD 1978 (Rev) 15].
Order of Collector withholding or granting his consent u/s 19---Passed as
delegate of Commissioner (delegator)---Such order is not subject to appeal or
revision before Commissioner---Order of Commissioner reversing Collector’s
order u/s 19---Coram non-judice and of no legal effect [1978 RLR 22]
9. ORAL AGREEMENT OF SALE
Transfer of proprietary rights. Oral agreement of sale by vendor
(transferee) in favour of vendee was not hit by S. 19. Colonization of Government
Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912. [PLD 2000 SC 792, PLD 1986 SC 70, 1986 PSC
(Pak.) 99, PLD 1985 SC 154]
Transfer of rights---Restrictions on---Oral agreement for transfer of land to
respondent (No.1) after conferment of proprietary rights reached between
predecessor-in-interest of appellants and respondent---Price of land also
received in advance---Subsequently, appellants granted proprietary rights as
legal heirs of deceased. Held: Oral agreement of sale (entered before
conferment of proprietary rights) not to be hit by provisions of S. 19 of
Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912. [PLJ 1986 SC 154]
10. SUB LEASING
Sub-lease agreement by allottee allowing sub-lessees to continue to be in
possession of allotted land for all times to come---Falls within purview of S. 19
which makes consent of Collector essential for validity of agreement---Recital in

75
[CGL ACT, 1912]
sub-lease agreement that possession was already with sub-tenants before
execution of agreement would not dispense with permission of Collector U/S
[Section 19-A]
19---Such sub-lease agreement without consent of Collector violates S. 19 and
does not entitle sub-tenants to seek its specific performance by way of civil suit.
[NLR 1989 Revenue 118]
11. TRANSACTION U/S 19—PRE-EMPTIBLE?
So long as the property in colony area was owned by the Government
and not by a private party, any transaction made under S. 19, Colonization of
Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 would not be pre-emptible. [PLD 2003 SC
588]
Agreement to sell made by allottees under Abadkari Scheme—Part
payment made and in consequence of agreement possession delivered to all
purchasers---agreement between petitioners and allottees was hit by S. 19 [NLR
1981 Revenue 175]
When a person claims that he is a tenant or an occupancy tenant of state
land, what he really claims is that he is a grantee by the Government. It will not,
therefore, be correct to say that a claim of tenancy can be made without bringing
into light his relationship with the Government. The terms “tenant” and “landlord”
are complementary and denote the dual interest in land. The law does not
contemplate a tenancy sans landlord. The claim of occupancy tenancy of state
land must, therefore, be a claim of occupancy tenancy of state land must,
therefore, be a claim of holding the property under the Government—Agreement
reached before any interest acquired---Is outside scope of Act---Government
may object to cultivation or possession of person other than tenant---But no
objection can be taken after acquisition of proprietary rights. [PLD 1951 Lahore
244]
Executive District Officer refused to grant permission on the ground that
such case had been initiated to evade Government Revenues leviable on
conveyance deed/ mutation of transfer of proprietary rights/ registration fee etc.---
Validity---No provision existed in the Act to exclude such case from purview of
consideration under S. 19 of the Act [2002 YLR 2414].
28
[19-A. Succession of the tenancy. When after the
coming into force of the Colonization of Government Lands
(Punjab) Amendment Act, 1951, any Muslim tenant dies,
succession to the tenancy shall devolve on his heirs in
accordance with the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat), and
nothing contained in sections 20 to 23 of this Act shall be
applicable to his case.

28
Added by Punjab Act III of 1951

76
[CGL ACT, 1912]

Provided that when the tenancy rights are held by a


[Section 19-A]
female as a limited owner under this Act, succession shall open
out on the termination of her limited interest to all persons who
would have been entitled to inherit the property at the time of
the death of the last full owner had the Muslim Personal Law
(Shariat) been applicable at the time of such death, and in the
event of the death of any of such persons before the
termination of the limited interest mentioned above, succession
shall devolve on his heirs and successors existing at the time of
the termination of the limited interest of the female as if the
aforesaid such person had died at the termination of the limited
interest of the female and had been governed by the Muslim
Personal Law (Shariat).
Provided further that the share, which the female limited
owner would have inherited had the Muslim Personal Law
(Shariat) been applicable at the time of the death of the last full
owner shall devolve on her if she loses her limited interest in
the property on account of her marriage or remarriage and on
her heirs under the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) if her limited
interest terminates because of her death.]
COMMENTS
SYNOPSIS
1. Co-operative Farming 2. Lease rights.
Scheme
3. Tenancy rights. 4. Effect of Muslim Personal Law.
5. Pedigree Livestock Breeding 6. Horse Breeding Scheme
Scheme.
7. Retrospective effect. 8. Occupancy rights.
1. COOPERATIVE FARMING SCHEME.
Allotment of state land as member of Cooperative Farming Society of the
area had already been found by the authorities as eligible for grant of proprietary
rights when he passed away---Allottee’s interest and rights in the said land stood
devolved upon his legal heirs under Muslim Personal Law of inheritance
notwithstanding anything contained in the bye-laws of the Cooperative Society---
Nomination of a person by the late allottee would not, by itself, deprive his legal
heirs to inherit the estate of deceased [2007 SCMR 1227].

77
[CGL ACT, 1912]
Cooperative Farming Scheme allotment under---Death of original member
[Section 19-A]
allottee---Claim of son of deceased allottee as independent allottee---Validity---
Original Register containing resolution regarding permanent allotment in favour
of deceased allottee showed interpolation---Record showed that suit land had
never been allotted to son or any other child of the deceased---Rights, interest
and liabilities of deceased member would devolve upon his legal heirs under S.
21 of Cooperative Farming Act, 1976, who would become member of the Society
in place of deceased member---Suit land therefore, would devolve upon all legal
heirs of the deceased allottee [2006 CLC 1141].
Allotment of land by Cooperative Society to deceased predecessor of
plaintiff—Such land after death of deceased (allottee) was allotted to his nominee
—allotment made in favour of nominee of deceased was void ab initio and could
not stand test of judicial scrutiny. [1998 SCMR 388]
Bye laws of a society, a practice, custom or usage, cannot override
provisions of S.19-A that tenancy of a Muslim tenant shall devolve in accordance
with Shariat. [NLR 1992 TD 343]
Clause 8 of Cooperative Farming Society laying down holding of a
member and his share and other interests in society to be only inherited by his
eldest son and in absence of a male issue such share or interest to devolve on
his nominee---Deceased having nominated his younger son as his nominee 5-
years before his death, such nomination never challenged, Collector declining
such nominee eligible to obtain proprietary rights, and such order also never
challenged, deceased having not obtained proprietary rights before his death,
Section 19-A, held not applicable to case and proprietary rights rightly granted to
respondents’ nominee. [PLD 1976 Rev. 72].
2. LEASE RIGHTS
Original lessee had died as lessee and not as grantee or tenant of land,
thus, provision of S.19-A of Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act,
1912 would not be attracted to case of petitioners [2004 CLC 108].
Father of parties dying in 1975 before obtaining proprietary rights of land
in his possession purely on Guzara basis---Held: Question of inheritance by legal
heirs not to arise at such stage---Held further: Lease rights to be competently
transferred to those in cultivating possession. [PLJ 1985 Revenue 4].
Lease of State land for five years—Determines at death of lessee—
Continuance of lease in favour of legal heirs of deceased lessee—Falls in
absolute discretion of Government—Refusal to continue lease—Not justifiable
before superior courts. [NLR 1979 Revenue SC 105]
3. TENANCY RIGHTS
There was nothing on record to suggest that either Colonization of
Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912, was not applicable to the suit land or the
allotment of lands which was made before application of Colonization of
Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912, to district Bahawalpur would not be

78
[CGL ACT, 1912]
governed by the same after it was extended to the district---Tenancy of the 19-A]
[Section suit
land on promulgation of Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912,
was to be governed by the same and original allottee being tenant of the land
was entitled to proprietary rights by operation of law and had become allottee
under Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912---Suit property was
devolved upon the legal heirs of the original allottee under West Pakistan Muslim
Personal Laws (Shariat) Application Act, 1962 [2005 SCMR 268].
Land in dispute was allotted to predecessor-in-interest of parties under
Ejected Tenants Scheme and proprietary rights in respect of land were also
conferred on him---After death of original allottee/ predecessor-in-interest, only
two of his legal heirs who allegedly were in cultivating possession of land in
question applied for grant of proprietary rights to them---Tehsildar recommended
transfer of tenancy under S. 19-A of Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab)
Act, 1912 to all the legal heirs of the deceased original allottee---District Collector
transferred the land to all the legal heirs of the deceased---Appeal filed by said
applicants was accepted by Additional Commissioner---Validity---Additional
Commissioner, in circumstances, had erred in setting aside order of District
Collector---All legal heirs being equally entitled to inheritance of deceased
allottee according to policy, order of Additional Commissioner transferring
inheritance to only two legal heirs of deceased and depriving the other legal
heirs, could not be upheld [2004 CLC 603].
Tenant having died before application for proprietary right or, even before
declaration of eligibility for proprietary rights in respect of leased property, right of
tenant was that of only a temporary tenant under' 15 Years' Lease Scheme---
Said temporary lease/tenancy would devolve upon all legal heirs of deceased
tenant [2002 CLC 1230].
Where the tenancy was not heritable the petitioners had neither any right
to remain in possession of that land nor they could insist that the lease in favour
of their predecessor be granted to them. [PLD 2000 Lahore 244]
Government land. Allotment of Tenant dying before making full payment.
Inheritance of. Section 15 of Act provides in express words that “A purchaser
from Government, of land, who has been placed in possession of land by order
of Collector, shall be deemed to be a tenant of such land until full amount of
purchase money with any interest due thereon, has been paid and other
conditions set forth in statement of conditions of sale issued by Collector, have
been fulfilled”. Admittedly Nizam Din was tenant of Government land and price
had yet to be paid by him. Held: Section 19-A of Act would not be available for
determining heirs of Nizam Din and that mutation of inheritance was in
accordance with law governing inheritance as provided in section 20 of Act.
Appeal dismissed. [PLJ 1989 SC 397]
4. EFFECT OF MUSLIM PERSONAL LAW
Section 2-A of West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application
Act, 1962 would not apply to such case—Suit for declaration filed by daughters

79
[CGL ACT, 1912]
after 47 years of such mutation was dismissed in circumstances [2008 SCMR
[Section 19-A]
230].
Daughter claimed to have inherited her Sharai share in possessory rights
held by propositus in suit land---Validity---Section 19-A of Colonization of
Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 and Punjab Muslim Personal Law
(Shariat) Application Act, 1948 came into force much later than the death of
propositus, which could not apply to past and closed transactions by giving
retrospective effect---Section 20 of Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab)
Act, 1912 was in force at the time of death of propositus, thus, succession of his
tenancy would open as per terms mentioned therein---Petitioner being married at
the time of death of propositus was not entitled to succeed him as per terms of S.
20 of the said Act [2007 CLC 1394].
Where deceased tenant had not made full payment and had not become
absolute owner, then tenancy would be inherited by his male lineal descendant---
Promulgation of West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act,
1962 being a general law on the subject would not have effect of derogating from
terms of Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 under which
grant was made and which was a special law---Where Muslim tenant died after
coming into force of Colonization of Government Land (Punjab) Act, 1912, then
nothing in S.20 thereof would apply---If Muslim tenant had died prior to year
1951, then his daughters could neither claim benefit of S.19-A of Colonization of
Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 nor could be benefited from retrospectivity
of S.2-A of West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1962
[2005 SCMR 658].
Limited estate held by widow was terminated and succession was
required to take place in accordance with Shariat Law by virtue of S.19-A of
Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1951, as the same was inserted
in the year, 1951---It was under the provision S.19-A of Colonization of
Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1951, that the widow deposited the sale price
on 8.4.1951 before her death---Both the Courts below had taken a correct view
that with the deposit of sale price, proprietary rights stood conferred---After the
death of widow, the succession would be deemed to have opened as if the
original allottee had died and succession would take place in accordance with
Muslim Personal Law [2005 SCMR 938].
Entitlement of female heirs to inherit tenancy--- Under provisions of S.19-
A, Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912, female heirs were also
entitled to inherit tenancies---Provisions of S.19-A, Colonization of Government
Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 were extended to District Rahimyar Khan wherein the
land in question was situated through promulgation of Colonization of
Government Lands (Punjab) West Pakistan Amendment Ordinance, 1963---
Contention of respondents was that as predecessor-in-interest of parties had
died in 1957, rights had vested in respondents prior to amending Ordinance and
declaratory suit filed by petitioners was rightly dismissed by Courts below---
Validity---Respondents had paid instalments of outstanding amount to the

80
[CGL ACT, 1912]
[Section 19-A]
Government after death of predecessor in-interest of parties and had acquired
proprietary rights therein after instalments had been paid---Impugned judgments
and decrees of Courts below were unexceptionable [2005 YLR 1806]
Law of Inheritance applicable in former State of Bahawalpur—In absence
of evidence of any special custom governing right of inheritance, rule of
Muhammadan Law was rightly applied by to the case and there was no ground to
interfere with judgment of High Court. [NLR 1996 Revenue 1]
West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act (V of 1962),
S. 2-A. Statutory tenancy under the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab)
Act, 1912, was also subject, notwithstanding its statutory character, to customary
limitations in the matter of alienation, the law hitting at such alienation would
reach the tenancy created under the Act as well. [PLD 1991 SC 71]
5. PEDIGREE LIVESTOCK BREEDING SCHEME
Allottee rights under Pedigree Livestock Breeding Scheme are not
heritable in accordance with S.19-A as clause 25 of Scheme itself provides for
rule of succession---Devolution of tenancies u/s 19-A would be applicable only to
permanent grants or at most to tenancies of long terms. [NLR 1995 Revenue 49]
Allotment of state land under Pedigree Livestock Breeding Scheme—
Such allotment whether heritable in accordance with S.19-A, Colonization of
Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912---One of the heirs (eldest son of
deceased) of allottee (who was also a Lambardar) on demise of such allottee
was appointed Lambardar and thus, lot of state land was linked with his office—
Allotment of land to him was grant for the offer also—Other heirs of deceased
allottee had, therefore, no share therein. [1995 CLC 838]
6. HORSE BREEDING SCHEME.
Suitable allottee had to be chosen by District Collector and on the death
of deceased contestant, his right devolved on his heirs---Heirs of deceased
would, thus, be entitled to contest allotment of horse breeding tenancy. [1996
MLD 395]
Allottee son---Not debarred from inheriting a tenancy of his deceased
father merely because he had acquired proprietary rights in a lot allotted to him
separately under same scheme. [NLR 1980 Revenue BOR 123]
7. RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT
Application of Colonization Act in Bahawalpur in 1926 by incorporation by
Adaptation Law of 1926—Did not have automatic application of S.19-A which
was added subsequent to incorporation---Provision of S.19-A did not apply to
Government tenant who died in Bahawalpur after addition of S.19-A—Inheritance
of deceased in such case done u/s 20 would not be open to challenge with plea
that inheritance was governed by S.19-A. [NLR 1990 SCJ 264]
Extension of Colonization Act to Bahawalpur by Bahawalpur Adaptation
Law of 1926—Did not incorporate extension of S.19-A which was enacted in
1951 subsequent to extension of Colonization Act to Bahawalpur in 1926---

81
[CGL ACT, 1912] [Section 20]

Inheritance to deceased tenant who had not yet paid price of land allotted to him
—Would not be governed by S.19-A. [NLR 1989 SD 718]
Last Muslim male owner having died issue less, his property was
devolved upon his widows in 1939. Such widow after having paid Government
dues in respect of said land acquired proprietary rights and thereafter sold it to
defendants. Plaintiffs; suit on basis of being heirs of last male owner claiming ¾
share of his property was dismissed by Trial Court, but was decreed on appeal
by First Appellate Court which was up held by the High Court in revision.
Defendants’ contentions that their case was governed by S. 30-A and not by S.
19-A of Act V of 1912 and that vendor widow being full owner of disputed land
was entitled to alienate it and that by provisions of S. 2-A of the amended Act V
of 1962, plaintiffs’ suit stood abated, had also been raised before High Court and
had been attended to. No interference, held, was called for by Supreme Court in
the light of principle laid down by Supreme Court. [1989 SCMR 1958].
Bahawalpur Shariat Act repealed Section 5 of Punjab Laws Act, 1872 and
made Mohammedan Law of Succession applicable to all cases of inheritance of
Mohammedans---This was a general law as compared to Act which dealt with
Government grants and tenancies thereof---Held: Promulgation of Shariat Law in
Bahawalpur on 04.03.1951 and repealing of section 5 of Punjab Laws Act, had
not effect of derogating from terms of Act under which grant was made. [PLD
1987 SC 123]
Act was extended to Bahawalpur on 02.05.1926 with a number of
amendments---Sections 13, 14, 27 and 31 of Act were made inapplicable to
Bahawalpur, so also all references to Punjab Tenancy Act, 1893 and whole of
Schedule No.1---Such incorporation, adaptation and application of Act in
Bahawalpur did not permit subsequent amendments in Act like section 19-A to
be made applicable automatically to Bahawalpur Region. [PLD 1987 SC 123,
PLD 1985 SC 159].
8. OCCUPANCY RIGHTS
Occupancy tenancy is heritable but not divisible—Failure to implead some
of minors of deceased occupancy tenant who filed appeal during his life time—
Would entail total abatement of appeal. [NLR 1987 Revenue 234]
29
20. Succession to tenants acquiring otherwise than by
succession. Subject to the proviso to section 14, when, after
the commencement of this Act, any original tenant dies the
succession to the tenancy shall devolve in the following order
upon: -
(a) the male lineal descendants of the tenant in the
male line of descent. (The term, lineal descendants,
29
Substituted by the Punjab Act III of 1920

82
[CGL ACT, 1912] [Section 20]

shall include an adopted son whose adoption has


been ratified by a registered deed).
(b) the widow of the tenant until she dies, or remarries,
or loses her rights under the provisions of this Act.
(c) the unmarried daughters of that tenant until they die
or marry or lose their rights under the provisions of
this Act.
(d) the successor or successors nominated by the
tenant by registered deed from among the following
persons, that is to say, his mother, 30[his pre-
deceased son’s widow, his pre-deceased grand
son’s widow], his married daughter, his daughter’s
son, his sister, his sister’s son and the male agnate
members of his family.
(e) the successor or successors nominated by the
Collector from among the persons enumerated in
clause (b) of this section.
COMMENTS
Section 2-A of West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application
Act, 1962 w.e.f. 01.08.1983 had abolished all customary rights and declared
Shariat as rule of inheritance---Suit, appeal etc., pending on 01.08.1983 seeking
enforcement of custom as a rule of inheritance stood abated forthwith---Courts
below by deciding inheritance of deceased under Muslim Law had not committed
any illegality or irregularity [2008 CLC 161].
Section 2-A of West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application
Act, 1962 would not apply to such case—Suit for declaration filed by daughters
after 47 years of such mutation was dismissed in circumstances [2008 SCMR
230].
Any male to whom the tenancy is first allowed by Collector is an original
allottee---In absence of male lineal descendants, the tenancy would to devolve
upon the widow of the tenant until she dies or re-marries, failing the widow
tenancy devolve upon the unmarried daughters of the tenant until they die or
marry---Being a Sunni land was distributed upon the opening of succession to
[Section 20]
the estate [PLJ 2007 Lahore 160].
Widow inherited tenancy rights in year 1930, but acquired proprietary
rights in February, 1963, when conveyance deed was executed in her favour---
30
Inserted by the Punjab Act XIII of 1941

83
[CGL ACT, 1912]
Widow on 14.05.1964 through mutation gifted such land to plaintiff (non-heir)---
Revenue Authorities reviewed gift mutation on application of legal heirs of
deceased tenant and widow---Widow in year 1930 had succeeded deceased
tenant as limited owner---Such limited estate had terminated on 31.12.1962 with
enforcement of West Pakistan Muslim Personal (Shariat) Application Act, 1962
re-opening succession of deceased male tenant to be decided in accordance
therewith---Execution of conveyance deed in favour of widow in February, 1963
would not constitute her as full owner [2006 SCMR 882].
Section 20 of Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912
provides that on death of original tenant, in absence of male lineal descendants,
tenancy shall devolve upon the widow of tenant until she dies or re-marries failing
the widow tenancy to devolve upon unmarried daughters of tenant until they die
or marry therefore petitioner widow when contracted second marriage suit-land
mutated in favour of daughter of deceased original tenant---Definition of such
original tenant in section-3 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab)
Act, 1912 confines strictly to male grantees to whom tenancy is first allowed by
Collector---Daughter of deceased original tenant was the limited owner of suit-
land hence when she died unmarried the tenancy was held to have devolved
under section 21(a) of the Act upon all the persons entitled to inherit the
deceased (original) tenant according to Shariat---Share of late daughter however
would also be distributed among her legal heirs in accordance with Sunni Law of
inheritance as petitioners had failed to prove that deceased lady was governed
by Shia Law [2006 MLD 1748].
Allotment was made in favour of wife of Shaheed for the act of gallantry of
her husband---Plaintiffs, being the legal heirs of Shaheed claimed the disputed
land, that since the wife of Shaheed had re-married she had lost her right to
retain the land aforesaid under sections 19-A, 20 & 21 of the Colonization of
Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912---Plaintiffs' suit for declaration was
dismissed as the Trial Court was of the view that the grant was not in the nature
of a limited estate so as to terminate on the re-marriage of petitioner, however
appeal was accepted---Appellate Court relied upon the provision from the
Regulations for Pay and Allowances of the Pakistan Army, 1982 that on re-
marriage a widow lost the right to the allowances---Validity---Impugned judgment
and decree by Appellate Court based on wholly irrelevant and inapplicable
considerations were set aside and that of the Trial Court were restored
[2006 YLR 1208].
Provisions of S.20 of Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act,
1912, are applicable to succession to original tenants but the case of tenants
who have acquired tenancy by succession, their case is covered by S.21 of
[Section 20]
Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912. [2001 CLC 1785]
Limited estate under Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act,
1912, is at par with a customary limited estate and subject to provisions of West
Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1962 [2000 YLR 635].

84
[CGL ACT, 1912]
On death of allottees, his widow succeeded to tenancy and on latter's
death, tenancy devolved upon her daughter, who acquired proprietary rights
thereof by paying Zar-e-Malkana on 20-3-1945 and formal sale-deed was
executed in her favour by Collector on 19-4-1947---Any daughter of original
allottee, thereafter, on 7-4-1979 gifted whole of land to her son ---Collaterals of
original allottee challenged such gift in a suit which was decreed---Defendant's
appeal and revision failed---Validity---Leave to appeal was granted to consider
whether suit filed by plaintiff (respondent) to call in question. alienation made by
daughter of original allottee in favour of her son was hit by provisions of S.2-A,
West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1962 and decree
passed therein was null and void [1997 SCMR 1412].
There is nothing in language of Section 21 to support contention that
succession to tenancy in cases falling within scope of section 21(b) will be
governed under section 20—Rule of inheritance contained in Section 20 deals
with succession of tenancy rights of original tenant, would not be applicable to
case governed by S.21(b)—Held, Succession to tenancy of original tenant of
agricultural land is governed in accordance with provisions of S.20 on death of
original tenant [PLJ 1996 SC 503].
Succession to tenancy of original tenant of agricultural land is governed in
accordance with S. 20 on death of original tenant. [NLR 1996 Revenue 1]
Limited estates in respect of immovable property acquired by Muslim
females under custom stood terminated with effect from 31.12.1962—Special
tenancy of limited character in favour of widow of a Government tenant in terms
of Ss. 19-A & 20, Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912, ran
counter to the basic concept of Muslim law of succession as enshrined in the
injunctions of Islam—heirs of last male owner would inherit property in question,
in accordance with Muslim Law of Inheritance. [1993 CLC 2058]
Statutory tenancy u/s 20(a) which was, notwithstanding character, subject
to customary limitations in matter of alienation—Would be hit by S.2-A, Muslim
Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1962. [NLR 1991 SD 101]
Limited estate holder succeeding to original tenant and acquiring
proprietary rights in 1956 would be governed by S. 2A, Muslim Personal Law
(Shariat) Application Act (V of 1962 [inserted by Amendment Ord. XIII of 1983].
On acquisition of proprietary rights limited female owner would not become full
owner but her rights would be subject to Shariat. Held. Finding of Courts below
that on acquisition of proprietary rights limited female owner (daughter of original
tenant) had become full owner was clearly untenable. [NLR 1991 SCJ 783]
Promulgation of Shariat Law in Bahawalpur on 04.03.1951 and[Section
repealing
20]
of S.5 Punjab Laws Act (1872)—Did not have effect of derogating from terms of
Colonization Act (1912) under which grant was made to a tenant. [NLR 1990
SCJ 264]
Government land. Allotment of Tenant dying before making full payment.
Inheritance of. Section 15 of Act provides in express words that “A purchaser

85
[CGL ACT, 1912]
from Government, of land, who has been placed in possession of land by order
of Collector, shall be deemed to be a tenant of such land until full amount of
purchase money with any interest due thereon, has been paid and other
conditions set forth in statement of conditions of sale issued by Collector, have
been fulfilled”. Admittedly Nizam Din was tenant of Government land and price
had yet to be paid by him. Held: Section 19-A of Act would not be available for
determining heirs of Nizam Din and that mutation of inheritance was in
accordance with law governing inheritance as provided in section 20 of Act.
Appeal dismissed. [PLJ 1989 SC 397]
Petitioners assailing order of Border Area Committee whereby it allotted
land to respondent, a military personnel--Petitioners claiming that earlier owing to
their two century old tenancy over land, Deputy Commissioner offered its sale to
them through a letter and accepting same they entered into a formal agreement
with Provincial Government to purchase it on instalments and even deposited
first instalment against receipt [1988 MLD 1538]
Land granted to original grantee as horse breeding grant, not subject to
rule of inheritance or any customary law--On death of original grantee thereof,
same, held, would be reverted back to Government and Government at its sweet
will could grant the same afresh to any one--After expiry of original grant, land in
dispute granted afresh by. Government to eldest son of original grantee without
conferring any vested right in favour of any heir of deceased grantee--No heir of
deceased grantee, could at law enforce any right against new grantee as he had
become full owner on payment of compensation to Government
[1988 CLC 2084].
Estate held by a Muslim female u/s 30-A (1) before enforcement of
Shariat Application Act, 1962 was in reality a limited estate held under custom.
Judgment and decree passed by Trial court and affirmed in first and second
appeals on view that estate of Muslim female acquiring proprietary rights u/s 30-
A was not hit by Shariat Application Act set aside by Supreme Court. [1983
SCMR 80]
Tenancy rights held by female as limited owner. Succession would open
out on termination of her limited interest in favour of all persons who are entitled
to inherit property at time of death of last full owner. Such succession would be
governed by Muslim Personal Law (Shariat). [NLR 1982 Revenue SC 110]
Conditions under which widow inherited tenancy u/s 20(b) to be referable
to then prevailing law of succession and in essence by imposing condition of her
holding estate till her marriage or death or otherwise loss of her rights under
provisions of Act, estate being conferred to be only limited, held further, there
[Section 20]
being no such condition under Muslim Law, widow tenant holding rights under
section to be legitimately assumed as customary limited owner. [PLJ 1982 SC
635]
Section 20 being self-contained law of succession does not require help
of personal law for its interpretation and enforcement. Sons of predeceased son

86
[CGL ACT, 1912]
of original tenant held, entitled to inherit original tenancy left by their grandfather
alongwith his living sons, as representatives of their deceased father.
Muhammadan Law Succession. Doctrine of Exclusion. [1981 CLC 3]
Life interest held by a widow u/s 20(b), Colonization Act—Not abolished
u/s 3, Shariat Act—Such interest outside scope of Shariat Act—S.3, Shariat Act,
applied only to life estates held by widows under Customary Law—It does not
apply to life interest held by widows under statutory law (like Colonization Act).
[1978 RLR 29]
Land allotted to petitioner’s husband’s brother on death of allottee
devolving on petitioner’s husband, and on such husband’s death mutation
effected in petitioner’s favour as limited owner---Petitioner continuing payment of
installments for land but when applying for permission to pay up entire price in
lump sum, permission refused on ground of petitioner having only a limited
interest---Held: Proprietary rights purchased by petitioner---Deemed inherited
from her deceased husband as limited owner and petitioner debarred from
alienating land except to extent of her own share of one fourth---Petitioner if
acting otherwise, reversioners entitled to seek legal remedy and stop her---
Collector directed to grant “Patta milkiat” to petitioner. [PLD 1976 Rev. 70]
Original grantee of land dying issueless and no male descendant being
available to succeed him, succession devolving on his widow under section 20
(b) of Act of 1962---Such succession, held, no abolished by Shariat Application
Act, 1962. [PLD 1976 Rev. 75]
Government being owner of property and also creating tenancy rights
could regulate succession to tenancy rights in land covered by Act---A personal
law---Applies as far as persons are concerned and not so far as properties are
concerned---Property of Muslim propositus wherever and in whatever Province
situated---To go to his Muhammadan Law heirs. [PLD 1975 Peshawar 71]
Tenancy granted after tenant’s death to one of his female heirs—Female
heirs becomes tenant in her own right – sex no bar for grant of land [PLD 1973
Lahore 726]
Ss. 20 and 21 govern succession to “tenant”. Not applicable where
proprietary rights have been acquired and tenancy ceases to exist---Daughter
succeeding to tenancy and paying up government dues for transfer of proprietary
rights---Becomes owner of land in her own right subject to limitations provided in
[Section 21]
S. 30-A of the Act. [PLD 1961 Baghdad-ul-Jadid 52]
31
21. Succession to tenants acquiring by succession.
When after the commencement of this Act any male tenant,
who is not an original tenant, dies, or any female tenant dies,

31
Substituted by the Punjab Act III of 1920

87
[CGL ACT, 1912]

marries, or re-marries, the succession to the tenancy shall


devolve: -
(a) in the case of a female, to whom the tenancy has
been first allotted, on the successor nominated by
the Collector from the issue of such female tenant,
or from the male agnates of the person, on account
of whose services the tenancy was allotted to her,
(b) in all other cases, on the person or persons who
would succeed if the tenancy were agricultural land
acquired by the original tenant.
COMMENTS
Courts below had concurrently found that "A" was last male owner and
plaintiff was his daughter and defendant was not in any manner related to him---
Rightful heir of said land after death of "A" and his wife, were plaintiff and his
sister---Supreme Court dismissed petition and refused leave to appeal
[2008 SCMR 1190].
Execution of sale deed in favour of female on payment of full price of land
to the extent of her share---Held, such female was full owner of land as per
registered sale deed [2007 SCMR 800].
Rule of succession to “tenancy” contained in Act would not be applicable
to cases of succession falling u/s 21(b) which governs succession to land
acquired by a tenant under provisions of Act. [NLR 1996 Revenue 1]
Tenancy of agricultural land—Entitlement to inheritance of such tenancy,
parties being Christians—Plaintiff was proved to be the only daughter of original
grantee—Plaintiff being only surviving child would alone inherit in terms of S.37,
Succession Act, 1925—Defendant’s claim to succeed on basis of Custom was
repelled in absence of proof of custom among Christians of that area. [1996 CLC
562]
Last female of original tenant neither succeeding to tenancy under
Customary Law nor under Muslim Law to exclusion of collaterals but found to
have been occupying same on basis of fresh allotment made in her favour before
being clothed with ownership rights, and her possession never held to be that of
a squatter or trespasser by authorities concerned-Such. case, held, does not
[Sections fall
22-24]
within mischief of S. 30-A (.1) `but covered by S. 30-A (2) and law of succession
applicable to inheritance of such female grantee of State land to be found in S. 2
of West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act; 1962
[1980 CLC 1319].
Words “on account of some male person”—Husband applying for grant of
land under Darya burdi scheme but dying before actual grant—Land
subsequently, sanctioned in husband’s name but mutated in widow’s name as

88
[CGL ACT, 1912]
his successor—Widow paying malikana, acquiring proprietary rights and gifting
away land to another—Widow granted land not in her own right but “on account
of some male person”—Widow in circumstances did not become full owner and
could not gift away property so as to deprive husband’s heirs. [1970 SCMR 246]
Ss. 20 and 21 govern succession to “tenant”. Not applicable where
proprietary rights have been acquired and tenancy ceases to exist---Daughter
succeeding to tenancy and paying up government dues for transfer of proprietary
rights---Becomes owner of land in her own right subject to limitations provided in
S. 30-A of the Act. [PLD 1961 Baghdad-ul-Jadid 52]
Tenancy right in hands of male tenant who is not original tenant must be
regarded as ancestral land qua collaterals of tenant, if tenant is governed by
custom in matters of succession. [PLD 1958 (W.P.) Lahore 340].
22. Acquisition of ownership not to affect nomination of
heir. When a tenant has nominated a successor to his tenancy
under section 20(d) and subsequently acquires a right of
ownership in the tenancy, the right of succession of the persons
so nominated, shall, unless the deed of nomination expressly
provides to the contrary, be unaffected by such acquisition of
ownership.
23. Revocation of nomination. When a tenant has under
section 20(d) of this Act, nominated a successor, he may at any
time, whether before or after acquiring ownership, revoke such
nomination, but not otherwise than by registered deed.
24. Power of imposing penalties for breaches of
conditions. When the Collector is satisfied that a tenant in
possession of land has committed a breach of the conditions of
his tenancy, he may, after giving the tenant an opportunity to
appear and state his objections: -
(a) impose on the tenant a penalty not exceeding 32[ten
thousand rupees]; or [Section 24]

(b) order the resumption of the tenancy;


Provided that if the breach is capable of rectification, the
Collector shall not impose any penalty or order resumption of
the tenancy unless he has issued a written notice requiring the
tenant to rectify the breach within a reasonable time, not being
32
Subs. for the words “five thousand rupees”, by the Notif. No. Legis:3(XXVIII), dated 28.06.1999, which
was previously subs. for the words “one hundred rupees“, by the Notif. No. Legis:3(2)/83, dated 18.01.1983.

89
[CGL ACT, 1912]

less than one month, to be stated in the notice and the tenant
has failed to comply with such notice.
COMMENTS
SYNOPSIS
1. Audi Altram partem 2. Breach of conditions.
3. Locus Standi 4. Extension in lease
5. Ineligibility 6. Notice
7. Service of notice 8. Fraud
9. Technicalities 10. Void orders
1. AUDI ALTRAM PARTUM
Grievance of petitioner was that his lease was cancelled by the
authorities---Plea raised by the authorities was that the lease was for five years
and the same was not renewed---Revenue authorities heard the petitioner and
after going through the record rightly cancelled lease of the petitioner---High
Court had considered the case in its proper perspective and after going through
the material on record had rightly dismissed the revision petition of the petitioner
with sound and cogent reason [2004 SCMR 1411].
It is well settled that no man should be condemned unheard – principle of
audi alteram partem is enshrined in our judicial system – Apex court has held
time and again that order effecting right of a party can not be passed without
providing opportunity of hearing to that party [PLJ 2003 Karachi 41].
Availability and utilization of subsequent opportunity of hearing washes
away the initial lack of such opportunity before a from below [2000 YLR 3027].
Allottees under the Act who had been delivered possession after payment
of required portion of sale price and who were not alleged to have committed any
breach of allotment, would become vested with right of being heard before
cancellation of the allotment. Cancellation to allotment without giving them right
of hearing would be violative of principle of natural justice. [NLR 1999 Revenue
SC 172]
Any order was violative of principle of audi alteram- partem would be
deemed to be nullity in eye of Law where order sought o be implemented
[Section by
24]
appellants was passed in violation of audi alteram partem, High court could
rightly refuse to issue order of mandamus for implementation of same [1998 PLC
(C.S) 141].
Alienees were, thus condemned unheard and were not afforded a
reasonable chance of defence for protecting their rights in land---Order of
cancellation of allotment violated rules of natural justice that no person should be

90
[CGL ACT, 1912]
condemned unheard---Order in question, on that score alone was liable to be
struck down as invalid [PLD 1994 Lah. 296].
Passing order of cancellation of resumption of land without hearing
allottees before cancelling their allotment–Order cancelling allotment of allottees
passed by Authorities could not sustain in circumstances [1994 CLC 473].
Tenancy cannot be resumed for violation of conditions of allotment
without giving opportunity to tenant to state his objections against intended
resumption and further opportunity to rectify breach within a reasonable time.
Resumption order passed without giving such opportunity to tenant would be
violative of requirements of S. 24. [NLR 1993 Revenue 28]
Opportunity of being heard to aggrieved person—Allotment once
made in favour of a person could not be withdrawn/ cancelled without grating
opportunity of being head to him [1993 CLC 376].
Order passed by a Court without hearing a party would be violative of the
established principles of natural justice and such illegality could not be rectified
by reasoning that no appeal having been filed such order, same had attained
finality [PLD 1992 Revenue 21].
Decision of important matter without hearing concerned parties, by itself
was arbitrary and unreasonable [1984 CLC 2955].
Allotment under Ejected Tenants Scheme—Cancellation without an
opportunity of hearing being given to allottee—Unlawful—Non-compliance with
mandatory provision of S.24 renders resumption order as mere nullity. [NLR
1980 Rev. Lah. 71]
In all proceedings by whomsoever held, whether judicial or administrative,
the principles of natural justice have to be observed if the proceedings might
result in consequences affecting “the person or property or other right of the
parties concerned” [PLD 1965 SC 90].
The arguments that the proceedings are not judicial is not supported by
any authority or an principle of interpretation. It is, therefore, essential that
opportunity of hearing should be given to the applicant and if no such opportunity
is given the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax passed in such
proceedings would be void and of no legal effect [PLD 1964 SC 410].
2. BREACH OF CONDITIONS
Tenant had neither remained in physical possession of land nor cleared
outstanding dues nor appeared before E.A.C.O. in response to notice issued by
him---Tenant had, got no interest in cultivation of land---Order of resumption of
[Section 24]
land was just and proper in circumstances [2008 SCMR 1208]
Plaintiff who was allottee of suit-land under 15 years Lease Scheme had
been reaping benefits from disputed land since long without paying anything to
Government---When lease period expired plaintiff prayed for proprietary rights
whereupon Collector vide notice under S.24 of Colonization of Government
Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 directed plaintiff to pay sale price with a penalty of

91
[CGL ACT, 1912]
Rs.2000---Said order was challenged through a declaratory suit which was
dismissed---Appellate Court however decreed the suit holding that breach
committed by plaintiff in terms and conditions of allotment was rectifiable-Validity-
Appellate Court did not mention as to under which provision of law a breach was
rectifiable and that plaintiff who admittedly was defaulter in the matter and also
had failed to pay price of property and fine was yet entitled to the decree---Land
in dispute was rightly resumed by Collector therefore Appellate Court should not
have interfered with order passed by Collector in accordance with law
[2007 MLD 472].
Complaint against allottee that he was ineligible to get alternate land and
proprietary rights as he was not in self cultivation of original tenancy and had
secured order of alternate land through interpolations in entries of Khasra
Girdawari by means of ink-remover in collusion with Revenue Staff---Collector
resumed land after canceling order of allotment [2006 SCMR 959].
Order of Collector proceeded simply on the basis of a report submitted by
Assistant Commissioner---No indication in the report that plaintiff was associated
or examined during preparation of report--- Report of Assistant Commissioner
was based on incorrect reporting by field staff, and plaintiff was not afforded
opportunity to disprove such report and to establish that he was not in breach of
any condition of lease--- Plaintiff should have been given time to rectify any
breach of conditions under S.24 of Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab)
Act, 1912---Resumption of suit land was not in accordance with law
[2006 MLD 1290]
Provisions of S.24 of Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act,
1912 provided that whenever a breach of conditions of tenancy had been
committed by tenant, Collector could either impose a penalty or order resumption
of tenancy, but where breach was capable of rectification, neither of the two
measures could be taken before calling upon tenants to rectify said breach within
reasonable period [2005 CLC 1877].
Tenancy was resumed by Collector due to non-payment of the price of
land---Conditions governing Mule-Breeding Tenancy specifically laid down that in
case a grantee defaulted in payment of purchase price, his grant would be liable
to resumption--- Grant did not confer any right on legal heirs or successors of
original grantee who had failed to deposit instalments as required by law---
District Collector had rightly resumed tenancy, in circumstances
[2005 CLC 1590]
Resumption of tenancy for breach of conditions---Board of[SectionRevenue
24]
passed such order on 17.01.1984, against which Constitutional petition was filed
in year 1994---High Court dismissed Constitutional petition on ground of laches---
Validity---Finding of fact of Board of Revenue that petitioner was in breach of
condition of agreement, had attained finality [2004 SCMR 508].
Cause of justice cannot be permitted to be sacrificed at the alter of
technicalities [PLJ 2004 FSC 39].

92
[CGL ACT, 1912]
Order of cancellation of plot was declared to be void, illegal and
ineffective qua his rights---Plaintiff was not given any opportunity for cancellation
for rectification of breach of condition of agreement, if any, under S.24,
Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912 [PLD 1998 Lahore 429].
State land in dispute was allotted to petitioner under Grow More Food
Scheme and proprietary rights were also allowed to him but owing to his constant
illness he could not deposit price thereof—Notice issued by Authority for
cancellation of lease, however, was harsh step depriving allottee of his legal
rights—Non-payment of dues by allottee, was condoned by Board of Revenue
keeping in view his poor economic condition with direction to deposit the dues
within specified period. [1997 CLC 1203]
Non-cultivation of leased land to the required extent and also non-
payment of arrears of lagan, being rectifiable, Board of Revenue, after receiving
order of resumption, restored lease to petitioners/ lessees condoning lapse with
penalty [1996 MLD 750].
Allotment of original allottee was cancelled illegally on the ground that he
had failed to raise any construction thereon, within specified period---In cases
relating to sale of immovable property, time would not be of the essence of
contract, and mere failure to raise construction within period fixed in agreement
could not result in cancellation of transfer [PLD 1995 Lah. 429].
Resumption of land, taking over of possession and appointment of
receiver---Such order was passed by Collector inspite of order of High Court in
earlier constitutional petition requiring him to re-consider petitioner’s case for
renewal of lease---Collector’s order was set aside, land was ordered to
petitioners and Authorities were directed to reconsider petitioner’s entitlement to
grant of lease after giving her opportunity of hearing [1994 CLC 1836].
Resumption of land by Collector on Commissioner’s order---Validity---
Petitioner’s contention that review being discretionary Commissioner’s order
directing review was without jurisdiction---Direction for review was issued by
Board of Revenue to Commissioner after consideration of Inspection Report
relating to allotment of land in question---Collector’s order for resumption of land
in question was, proper and valid in circumstances [PLD 1994 Revenue 9].
Breach of condition that tenant was not in self-cultivation at time of
allotment is rectifiable. [NLR 1992 Revenue 36]
Breach of terms of tenancy i.e. petitioners being not in self-cultivating
possession, could be rectified—Respondent authorities could, however, consider
[Section 24]
petitioners’ case for rectification of breach and do the needful---Plot not in self –
cultivating possession – Effect – Breach of terms and conditions of tenancy could
be rectified [1992 CLC 1536].
The lessee whole land was grabbed by a trespasser and who was made
to get rid of him despite restoring to remedies at law, could not be burdened with
the responsibility of not fulfilling the condition of cultivating the land himself [1992
SCMR 1163].

93
[CGL ACT, 1912]
Section 24 empowers Collector to impose penalty on the tenant for
breaches of the conditions of tenancy made by him after giving hearing to the
tenant. Section 30 provides that after acquisition of proprietary rights by a tenant,
he shall cease to be subject to any statement of conditions issued under the
abovementioned Act but would remain bound by other provisions of this Act
applicable to the proprietors of the land. [1991 SCMR 2415].
Non-cultivation by allottee under Guzara Scheme whose tenancy
subsequently is merged in Ejected Tenants Scheme is a rectifiable breach—
Resumption of land for such breach along with dismissal of application of allottee
for conferment of proprietary rights would be illegal. [NLR 1989 Revenue 86]
Power of resumption u/s 24 vests in Deputy Commissioner/ Collector and
not in Commissioner—Order by Commissioner directing resumption would be
devoid of jurisdiction and liable to reversal by Board of Revenue---Failure to
cultivate land in accordance with terms of grant is capable of rectification—
Resumption of land without giving opportunity of allottee/ grantee for rectification
would not be warranted u/s 24---Resumption of land should be based on a
speaking order directing evidence in support of resumption---Failure to cultivate
land in accordance with terms of grant is capable of rectification [NLR 1988 Rev
100].
Breach of conditions was capable of rectification, no resumption of
tenancy, held could take place unless grantee had been issued notice, requiring
him to rectify breach of conditions---Where however, grantee failed to show that
the breach of conditions was capable of rectification and there was any positive
effort on part of grantee to rectify such breach of conditions, resumption of land
by Collector could not be interfered with in constitutional jurisdiction of High
Court. [PLD 1987 Karachi 394]
Grant of land proprietary rights subject to terms and conditions, one of the
tenant of such land unless and until he fulfils terms and conditions of the grant---
Collector held, was empowered to cancel and resume land in case of a breach of
any condition of the grant independently of S. 24 [PLD 1987 SC 123].
Cancellation of such allotment due to non-approval by District Collector---
Non-approval of allotment by District Collector, held, would not be fault of allottee
in possession over years [PLD 1986 Rev. 62].
Area still lying Banjar and possession of respondent entered in Khasra
Girdawari—respondent allowed a time limit of 2-year to bring once under
cultivation and to sow food grow crops failing which land world be resumed [PLD
[Section 24]
1985 Rev. 6].
Cancellation of land still banjar – PC through revision approaching BOR
for cancellation of allotment on ground that allottee failed to cultivation land upto
fixed limit—BOR allowed two years time to respondent to bring area under
cultivation and to sow food grain crops failing which land would be resumed
[KLR 1985 Rev Cases 19].

94
[CGL ACT, 1912]
Penal provision of S. 24---Attracted only during continuance of lease.
[NLR 1983 Revenue 128]
Breaches of cultivating requirement---Rectifiable during continuance of
lease but not rectifiable after expiry of lease---Formal notice U/S 24---Not needed
where lease already stands expired---Provision U/S 24 relates only to question of
termination of lease during its continuance. [NLR 1983 Revenue 218]
Breach of terms and conditions of lease not established in absence of
such findings cancellation of lease without any cause. [1982 CLC 833]
Resumption of land. Petitioner not cultivating land for a long period and
failing to fulfill requisite condition and breach becoming un-rectifiable.
Resumption of land by Collector, held, needs no interference in circumstances.
[1982 SCMR 149]
Conditions of tenancy, breach of—Member, Board of Revenue not
seriously considering whether any breach of conditions committed, failing to
consider whether such breach if committed could be rectified and in case of
same being capable of being rectified not requiring tenant to rectify breach—
Provisions of S.24 having not at all been considered, material prejudice, held,
caused to parties—Case in circumstances remanded for consideration. [1981
CLC 1700]
Order of Collector forfeiting land without giving an opportunity to defaulter
to rectify mistake. Order passed on allottee’s default to pay price within time of
two months given by Commissioner on allottee’s appeal against earlier order of
Collector, held, petitioner cannot legitimately raise any grievance against
forfeiture of land from him, Held, also, plea claiming successive extension of time
every time when a default is committed cannot be endorsed because if accepted
it would lead to a situation where Collector would never be in a position to pass
any order and inifinitum [1981 SCMR 1125, NLR 1981 Revenue SC 2]
Resumption of land for non-payment of amount of installment. Petitioners
twice afforded reasonable opportunities for making up default but they failing to
do so. Held, no fault can be found with High Court, in dismissing Constitutional
petition. [1981 SCMR 1182, NLR 1981 Revenue SC 23].
Rectifiable breach of condition (viz. non-payment of dues and failure to
bring land under cultivation). Finding by Colonization Authorities and High Court
that petitioner had already defaulted in non-cultivation of land for a long period
and had not fulfilled requisite conditions of lease. Not open to challenge in
Supreme Court constitution of Pakistan, 1973, Art. 185(3). [NLR 1981 Revenue
[Section 24]
SC 166]
Forfeiture of allotment for default in payment of price within two months’
time given by Commissioner on allottee’s appeal against initial forfeiture order
passed by Collector—Contention that u/s 24 (Colonization Act) it was incumbent
on Collector to examine whether mistake on part of defaulter was rectifiable or
not—Devoid of force. [NLR 1980 Revenue SC 16]

95
[CGL ACT, 1912]
Person in occupation of land, originally entering as tenant---Non-payment
of rent, held, does not determine tenancy and such person’s status that of tenant
[1979 CLC 433].
Allotment of state land under Notification No.837-C of 01.03.1933 (as
amended subsequently---Scheduled tenancy within meaning of S. 4---
Cancellation of allotment rectification of breach of conditions---Application of S.
24 excluded by virtue of S. 27. [PLD 1965 W.P. (Rev.) 16]
3. LOCUS STANDI
Five years Lease Scheme---Proprietary rights, grant of---Tender holder---
Locus standi---Appellant was neither party to the proceedings nor was an allottee
of land in dispute, therefore, he was not entitled to any hearing before the lower
forum---No misreading or non-reading of available material or misconstruction of
law was done by Board of Revenue---Judgment of High Court being well-based
and un-exceptionable did not warrant any interference by Supreme Court---
Appeal was dismissed [2006 SCMR 1093]
4. EXTENSION IN LEASE
Petitioner was granted land on tenancy for cultivation on animal breeding
conditions. Renewal of the lease could not be claimed as a matter of right.
Tenant was found disentitled for renewal of lease on account of poor purchasing
results/ performance and of flagrant violation of the terms and conditions of
lease, he was rightly refused further renewal of lease. [PLD 2002 SC 716]
Petitioner having completed his period of specified cultivation to
satisfaction of Authorities, there after, discontinuation of possession could not be
made ground for refusal to confer proprietary rights and resumption of tenancy –
Non compliance of statement of conditions would although give right to Revenue
Authorities to resume land or cancel the same et notice was pre – condition for
resumption or cancellation of such land [1997 CLC 1735].
Lease was not re-granted to petitioners on the ground that Authorities
found that they were not entitled to re-grant as their performance was not up to
the mark – Before taking such decision neither notice was sent to petitioners nor
opportunity of hearing to satisfy Authorities was given to them Determination of
merits of petitioner’s case without providing them opportunity of hearing was
violative of not only the law but also principles of natural justice [1994 CLC
1836].
Grant of state land to petitioner on ten years’ lease---Petitioner’s
application for extension of lease period was rejected by Collector on the ground
that terms and conditions of lease were not fulfilled by petitioner and that only
part of land was brought under cultivation by him---Order of Collector was
affirmed in appeal---Validity---Circle Patwari had confirmed statement of
petitioner that about 80 percent of land had been brought under cultivation by
petitioner---Petitioner having brought substantial part of land under cultivation
with hard labour and expense it would not be fair to deprive him of such land.
[1986 MLD 407]

96
[Section 24]

[CGL ACT, 1912]


Renewal of tenancy refused by Collector, on account alleged default on
part of tenant, without hearing him—Order passed without following principle of
natural justice—Held void. Subsequent order of appellant or revisional authorities
also void---Tenancy---Period of tenancy expiring but tenant continuing in
possession---Position of such tenant, not that of a trespasser but that of a “tenant
holding over”. Tenant not putting up a permanent residence in village—breach of
condition, rectifiable—such mistake not made a ground of resumption of tenancy
during preceding tenure of tenancy—Held, cannot be made basis for refusal to
renew tenancy [PLD 1973 Lahore 528]
Land grant – ease, renewal of – Removal fine – grantee applying for
further grant in good time and remaining in lawful possession of land –Delay in
deciding further lease grant to lessee not due to his fault but occurring in
Government offices – Lessee, held, cannot be penalized, in circumstance of case
– Removal fine remitted [PLD 1968 W.P (Rev) 31].
Renewal of tenancy refused by Collector, on account of alleged default on
part of tenant, without hearing him---Order passed without following principle of
natural justice---Held, void---Subsequent orders of appellate or revisional
authorities also void [PLD 1936 All. 686].
5. INELIGIBILITY
Transfer of tenancy rights by way of gift claimed by brother of deceased
tenant—Validity—Period of tenancy had already expired—Deceased tenant had
neither paid 1/4th lease money in time nor cultivated land—Deceased tenant had
other brothers and sisters, who had not come forward with such claim—
Deceased tenant without written permission of competent authority could not
transfer any right or interest in State land—Such transferee not being a lessee or
tenant could not take benefit of S.24 of CGL Act, 1912—Claim of transferee, held
was, not maintainable [2008 SCMR 291].
If plaintiffs were granted temporary cultivation lease, they must had been
issued in favour an order for delivery of possession which must had been noted
and entered in Rapat Roznamcha Waqiati of the Patwari---Thereafter, their
possession must had been shown upon the lands in dispute--- If the allotment of
the lands in favour of the plaintiffs was to be found genuine, then they were to be
considered entitle to the opportunity of hearing and notice---Persons who had
obtained allotments on the basis of fraud, forgery and fabrication were not
entitled to be shown with any indulgence---They could not be granted relief to
perpetuate fraud and set a bad example in the books of justice [PLJ 2006
[Section 24]
Lahore 1453].
Land in question, was restored on condition that petitioners would clear
dues outstanding against them—Petitioners’ failure to clear dues resulted in
resumption of land on second time—Petitioners’ plea that in terms of Memo. No.
3138-75-TH-1, dated 28.11.1973 they were liable to pay price of land in yearly
instalments and not in lump sum, therefore, resumption of land was not
warranted by law. [1996 SCMR 534]

97
[CGL ACT, 1912]
Land in dispute admittedly having been resumed, penalty was imposed
on petitioner for illicit cultivation of that land. Amount of penalty to be recovered
from petitioner not being commensurate with benefit obtained by petitioner, he
was not entitled to discretionary relief of grant of leave to appeal against recovery
of that amount ordered to be recovered from him by Courts below. [1991 SCMR
1726]
Tenant summoned by Collector on information laid by another that tenant
was ineligible to grant of tenancy held by him---Sufficient notice to tenant for
cancellation of tenancy by Board of Revenue---Proceedings before
Commissioner and Board of Revenue only continuation of proceedings initiated
by Collector. [PLD 1964 (W.P.) Lahore 372]
6. NOTICE
Lease of land under Tubewell Sinking Scheme for a period of twenty
years extendable for another ten years was prematurely cancelled by the
Collector---Lessee had failed to avail the statutory remedies of appeal before the
Commissioner and the Board of Revenue---Held, resumption order of the
Collector, after notice to allottee and hearing him in circumstances, was justified
as there was a substantial compliance of S.24 of Colonization of Government
Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 [2005 SCMR 1612]
Colombo Plan Scheme---Proprietary rights, grant of---Case of petitioner
was recommended for grant of proprietary rights to him---Authorities, instead of
deciding his applications, passed ex parte order against him--- Validity---
Petitioner had more than one alternate remedy available against the order,
before higher Revenue Authorities under the provisions of law, therefore
Constitutional petition was not maintainable---Petition was disposed of
accordingly [2005 CLC 1435].
Non-compliance of statement of conditions would although give right to
Revenue Authorities to resume land or cancel the same yet notice was pre-
condition for resumption or cancellation of such land---No notice having been
given to allottee and he having deposited dues pertaining to proprietary rights
with permission of Revenue Authorities, he would be entitled to acquire
proprietary rights [1997 CLC 1735].
Notice issued to petitioner for vacating land in question was set aside and
respondents were directed to allow petitioner to participate in open katchery for
disposal of land in question as and when such occasion would arise and till then
[Section 24]
he would not be dispossessed [1996 CLC 676].
Resumption of tenancy without notice to tenant whose lease term has
expired, would not be open to challenge in writ jurisdiction [NLR 1994 Revenue
127].
Lease of land, cancellation of lease of land duly granted to tenant, was
cancelled by Authority on ground that tenant had violated terms and conditions of
tenancy – No notice to appear and clear his position was given to tenant before
canceling his lease- Cancellation of lease could only be made after giving tenant

98
[CGL ACT, 1912]
an opportunity to appear and state his objections to proposed cancellation [1993
CLC 902].
Allotment of land in question, duly made in name of predecessor-in-
interest of petitioners, was subsequently cancelled on account of non-payment of
balance amount---Contention of petitioners that not only petitioners were
condemned unheard, but mandatory requirement of notice contemplated by S.
24 of the Act was not adhered to by Authority, remained un-controverted---High
Court allowing Constitutional petition, set aside order canceling allotment being a
nullity in the eye of law. [1991 MLD 1507]
Authority decided case without issuing notice to and hearing other
interested and contesting parties – order of such Authority was void altogether
being against elementary principles of natural justice [1991 CLC Note 260].
Prior notice to grantee/ allottee was required before cancellation of his
grant---No prior notice having been given to petitioners before cancellation of
grant, statutory requirement was not fulfilled---Orders canceling grants of
petitioners were thus liable to be set aside. [1990 MLD 2353]
Show-cause notice to grantee before cancellation of his grant—
Necessary only in cases where breach of conditions of capable of rectification
and grantee has made some positive effort to rectify breach—Resumption/
cancellation of grant without show-cause notice would be unexceptionable in
case of unrectifiable breach of condition. [NLR 1987 Revenue 180]
Ejected Tenant Scheme. Cancellation of allotment on ground of non-
payment of rent. Ex-parte order passed by Colony Authorities. Upheld as being
unexceptionable in circumstances of case [NLR 1986 SCJ 76]
Cancellation of grant without prior notice in terms of S. 24 of Act, 1912,
held, was not maintainable. [PLD 1986 Rev. 18]
Original grantee filing appeal but Addl. Commissioner dismissing it on
ground of limitation—MBR allowing revision on ground that original grantee was
not served with a notice prior to cancellation—High Court accepting writ petition
of subsequent grantee and setting aside order of MBR on ground that he was not
justified to re-open issue which already stood concluded. [NLR 1985 Rev 120]
Principle of natural justice deemed to be taken as part of every status
unless its application not expressly excluded – order passed without notice and
without hearing affected parties was void and no legal sanction could be attached
to superstructure place on such a void order [1984 CLC 2955]. [Section 24]

Statutory notice under S. 24 to original allottee not issued before


cancelling his allotment – Defect inherent and order of cancellation null and
void---Subsequent hearing of original allottee by authorities and subsequent
finding in appeal, held, cannot cure inherent defect [1981 SCMR 1061].
Petitioner getting Government land on lease on condition of its being
cancelled and resumed without compensation if required for public purpose—
Tenancy cancelled and land resumed for establishing an industrial estate without

99
[CGL ACT, 1912]
notice—Failure to give notice, held, not always fatal to action taken—Person
complaining must show such failure having resulted in prejudice to him—
Cancellation of lease and resumption of land in circumstances, held, not ordered
under S.24 but under terms and conditions of lease and therefore, valid. [PLD
1981 Lahore 343]
Resumption order passed without notice to allottee of tenancy---Order,
held, violative of mandatory provision of S. 24 as well as principle of natural
justice and allottee entitled to proprietary rights in land. [PLD 1978 Lahore
1370]
Resumption of Ihatas without giving notice to allottees calling upon them
to rectify breach---Contravention of S. 24---Resumption of Ihatas without
adverting to S. 24. [PLD 1976 Lahore 820]
7. SERVICE OF NOTICE
Grievance of petitioner was that lease agreement was cancelled by
authorities on the allegation of violation of terms of lease agreement, without
giving him any opportunity of hearing---Validity---Order passed by authorities
transpired that though notices were directed to be issued to petitioner but there
was nothing on file to reflect that notices were actually sent---Petitioner was
unaware of fixation of date of hearing, therefore, he was condemned unheard---
Petition was allowed in circumstances [2009 YLR 1035].
When presumption is raised in terms of Art. 129 of the QSO, read with
Section 27 of General Clauses Act, on a question of fact, it would stand rebutted
if the addressee makes a statement on oath denying service and the onus to
prove service would continue to be on the party relying on such a notice unless
of course there is other evidence to indicate that the denial of the service by the
addressee is against the record [PLJ 2008 SC 16].
Issuance of letters/notices to allottee at his given address by Authority
before passing such order---Plea of allottee that he was not heard before passing
such order---Validity---Presumption of correctness and regularity was attached to
such documents, which were copies of official record---Such plea was not
accepted in circumstances [2007 MLD 594].
Under clause (b) of conditions 18 of statement of conditions, Deputy
Commissioner and not Commissioner is Authority vested with powers to resume
land---Held: Commissioner has not acted in exercise of his lawful jurisdiction and
impugned order is ultra vires---Breach of condition by appellant in his[Section
failure 24]
to
cultivate land is capable of rectification within a reasonable period---No notice for
rectification having been given, resumption of land is not legally correct---If order
is not a speaking order, it implies that its maker did not apply his mind to relevant
question. [PLJ 1988 Revenue 4]
Cancellation of grant without adopting procedure of issuing notice of
rectification of infringement in S. 24 of Act of 1912, held, was not proper. [PLD
1985 Rev. 197]

100
[CGL ACT, 1912]
Notice having been received by son of addressee at his residential
address, held, was therefore, a valid service in circumstances. [PLD 1984
Karachi 413]
Contended that defect of failure to issue requisite notice stood cured by
subsequent finding of appeal, etc. by original allottee where he was heard by all
subsequent authorities, Contention repelled as having no merit. Held,
subsequent hearing in case of failure to issue a statutory notice cannot cure
inherent defects laid down in PLD 1971 SC 580. [1981 SCMR 1061, NLR 1981
Revenue SC 59]
Service of notice essential before passing order of resumption under
S.24---Notice to be in accordance with S. 20, Punjab Land Revenue Act (XVII of
1887). Notice of service on tenant of grantee. Not valid---According to section 7
of the Act, the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 is applicable to all proceedings
under the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act. Hence notice under
section 24 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 should
be in accordance with the provision of section 20 of the Punjab Land Revenue
Act, 1887. This section does not provide for service of notice on a tenant,
therefore, service of a notice under section 24 of the Colonization of Government
Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 to the tenant of grantee, likewise, would not be a valid
notice to the grantee---Absence of tenant---Violation capable of rectification.
[PLD 1960 (W.P.) Lahore 995]
8. FRAUD
Fraud if established on record is sufficient to vitiate most solemn
proceedings. As such, no benefit can be derived by a person claiming proprietary
rights in a particular property based on fraudulent transaction [NLR 2003 Civil
146].
Fraud vitiates all solemn acts and any instrument, deed or judgment, or
decree obtained through fraud is a nullity in the eye of law and can be questioned
at any time and can be ignored altogether by any court of law before whom they
are produced in any proceeding [1993 SCMR 618].
Every Court, Tribunal or Authority was vested with power to recall an
order obtained from it by fraud.
Fraud vitiates the most solemn proceedings and party cannot be
permitted to reap and retain benefit of its fraud—Fraud cannot be sanctioned or
protected by any Court, Tribunal or Authority, they have inherent jurisdiction to
[Section 24]
review their record to undo the acts of fraud [PLD 1993 Lah. 842].
9. TECHNICALITIES
When any authority or officer is empowered to make an order or give
direction, such power is required to be exercised reasonably fairly justly and for
the advancement of the purpose of enactment and assign reason for making
such order [PLJ 2008 Cr.C Kar 225].

101
[CGL ACT, 1912]
Public functionaries are duty bound to decide the applications of citizens
after judicial application of mind with reasons [PLJ 2008 SC 95].
High Court dismissed Constitutional petition on ground of laches. Validity.
Finding of fact of Board of Revenue that petitioner was in breach of conditions of
agreement, had attained finality. Such findings of High Court did not suffer from
any legal infirmity. [2004 SCMR 508]
Law does not intend to thwart adjudication of a lips on mere technicalities
of procedure---Law favours decision of cases on merits rather stifling the matter
on fetish pleas [2003 CLC 1011].
In order to seek justice, one must be fair and should do justice himself [2003
CLC 1652].
No body should be penalized by act of public functionaries---Public
functionaries are duty bound to act justly, fairly, equitably, reasonably and without
discrimination [2003 CLC 1711].
Where the law prescribes the method of doing a thing in a particular
manner, the same has to be done in that manner failure where of may ensue the
legal consequences [2003 CLC 1896].
High Court in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction had found that
resumption order of the Colony Assistant was malafide and incapable of being
sustained. Resurrection of the matter at the level of the Colony Assistant after a
period of more than 29 years of the delivery of possession to the respondent was
also resolved by High court. High Court had not committed any illegality while
holding that colony Assistant was not possessed of the requisite jurisdiction to
make the resumption order. [2001 SCMR 209, NLR 2001 Revenue SC 114]
No body should be penalized by the act of the court or by the act of the
public functionaries---Where the basic order was without lawful authority then the
superstructure built on it would fall on the ground automatically [2001 CLC 1741]
Technicalities, no hurdles to be created in way of substantial justice [2000
SCMR 440].
Withdrawal of created right by a notification---validity---When any right is
created in favour of a citizen, same cannot be taken away by a notification
through an administrative order even by a competent authority [1999 MLD 2346]
All citizens of the Province are equal before law and are entitled to equal
protection of law [1999 CLC 1615].
Resumption of land should be based on speaking order discussing in
[Section 24]
support of resumption [NLR 1998 Rev 100].
Administrative order or Notification would not operate retrospective to
disadvantage of person affected by it [1997 SCMR 503]
Colony Assistant who had passed impugned order of resumption of land
did not have powers of Collector vesting in him at the relevant time—Order of
resumption of land before such specified date having been passed by Colony

102
[CGL ACT, 1912]
Assistant was in excess/ absence of jurisdiction and was, thus, nullity in law
[PLD 1996 Lahore 219].
Order of resumption of land in contradiction to earlier order whereby
appellant was allowed to retain land in question, on payment of specified amount
to which appellant had agreed. Subsequent order canceling land from appellant’s
name was thus, result of misconception, which was declared to be without lawful
authority by the Supreme Court. [1994 SCMR 465]
No litigant should suffer on account of the fault of the court or the court
official---Technicalities of law should not be allowed to become a stumbling block
in the path of justice [1993 MLD 2288]
Authority to resume land after complying with S. 24, held, vested with
Collector---Resumption of such land by Commissioner was ultra vires of his
jurisdiction---Grantee’s failure to cultivate land being capable of rectification,
resumption thereof, on such breach of condition, held, could not be ordered
unless grantee was issued written notice requiring him to rectify breach of
condition viz, cultivation, within reasonable time---Where order of Authority about
resumption of grant was non-speaking order, implication, held, would be that
Authority passing such order did not apply its mind to the question. [PLD 1988
Revenue 29]
Review---Petitioner offering to pay price in time but necessary adjustment
not made due to inefficiency on part of dealing staff and relevant document not
produced before order sought to be reviewed came to be passed--Case not one
of deliberate default on part of petitioner---Order reviewed in circumstances [PLD
1978 Rev. 75].
Cancellation of grant. Grant is to be read according to its tenor, any
statute or law to contrary notwithstanding. Valid grant can be cancelled only in
accordance with the provisions of Act and conditions of grant. [PLD 1966 SC
639]
10. VOID ORDERS
Where basic order was illegal, void and without lawful authority any super
structure built there on has to fall to ground automatically [PLJ 2003 Tr. C
(Services) 21].
Such functionaries are to pass a speaking order ad not to act on a
note/report submitted before them [2000 CLC 1204].
Colony Assistant who had passed impugned order of resumption of land
did not have powers of Collector vesting in him at the relevant time—Order of
[Section 25]
resumption of land before such specified date having been passed by Colony
Assistant was in excess/ absence of jurisdiction and was, thus, nullity in law.
[PLD 1996 Lahore 219]
Void order does not exist in eye of law---It can certainly be ignored for all
practical purposes by Authority before whom it is to be produced for
implementation [NLR 1991 Civil 85]

103
[CGL ACT, 1912]
Allotment of land made by Assistant Commissioner/ Collector for five
years not got approved officials from District Collector – Collector subsequently
resuming land in favour of state – Held: petitioner being not at fault, action to be
taken against official at fault – petitioner in possession of land since 1970 – Held:
lease to be restored to petitioner in case of his having paid all rent due and there
being no other breach of condition [PLJ 1986 Revenue 11].
Order void ab-initio---A nullity---Such order does not require to be set
aside in appeal or any other proceeding [PLD 1976 Supreme Court 208]

25. Power of re-entry and provisions as to compensation


in certain cases. Where an order resuming the tenancy has
been passed under the last preceding section, the Collector
may forthwith re-enter upon the land and resume possession of
it, subject to the payment of compensation, to be fixed by the
Collector, for uncut and un-gathered crops and for the
improvements, if any, that may have been made by the tenant.
Provided that if the tenancy be allotted to any other
person, the amount of the compensation, if any, paid to the
outgoing tenant shall be recoverable by the Collector from the
incoming tenant.
COMMENTS
Petitioners were granted State land on lease under Tube-Well Scheme,
but since they failed to comply with terms and conditions of tenancy, Authority
resumed land and ordered payment of rent for the period petitioners remained in
its possession---Payment of compensation to petitioners being otherwise not a
precondition to resumption of State land, failure of Authority to pay the same,
held, would not relieve petitioners of their obligation to pay rent for period they
remained in possession of that land [1989 MLD 3089].
Grant made for a gallantry award. Cancellation of such grant by Board of
Revenue. Unwarranted. [1981 SCMR 911]
Payment of compensation---Not condition precedent to resumption of
[Section 26 & 27]
land under section. [1970 SCMR 235]

26. Provisions for re-entry on and compensation for


building on sites allotted for residential purposes. In any
case where a tenant has been allotted a site for residential
purposes in consideration of his tenancy, and such tenancy has
been resumed under the provisions of section 24 and 25 of this

104
[CGL ACT, 1912]

Act, the Collector may re-enter on and take possession of such


site:
Provided that the Collector shall fix and pay to the said
tenant reasonable compensation for, or permit him to remove,
any buildings or improvements made by him on such site.

COMMENTS
Applies when land is resumed under S. 24. S. 26 not applicable in case of
relinquishment. [1961 PLD 7]

27. Saving of certain tenancies and conditions. (1)


Nothing in section 24, 25 or 26 shall apply to: -
(a) the case of land irrigated by the Rakh and Mia Ali
Branches of the Chenab Canal allotted before the
twelfth day of August, 1896, or
(b) any breach of a condition regarding arboriculture
included in any statement of conditions other than a
statement pertaining to tree planting tenants, 33[or]
(c) any tenancy scheduled under the proviso to section
4, except to such extent as may be specified in the
statement of conditions applicable to such tenancy.
(2) 34[X X X X X X X X X]
COMMENTS
Ejected Tenant Scheme. Cancellation of allotment on ground of non-
payment of rent. Ex parte order passed by Colony Authorities. Upheld as being
unexceptionable in circumstances of case. Colonization of Government Lands
[Section 28]
(Punjab) Act (I of 1912), Ss. 24, 27. [NLR 1986 SCJ 76]
Leave to appeal granted to examine among other grounds whether
resumption of tenancy on breach of a condition subject to affording opportunity
for rectification and to examine effect of S. 27 on provisions regarding
rectification contained in S. 24. [1982 SCMR 886]
Allotment of state land under Notification No.837-C of 01.03.1933 (as
amended subsequently---Scheduled tenancy within meaning of S. 4---

33
Added by the Punjab Act VI of 1944
34
Deleted by the Punjab Act VI of 1944.

105
[CGL ACT, 1912]
Cancellation of allotment rectification of breach of conditions---Application of S.
24 excluded by virtue of S. 27. [PLD 1965 W.P. (Rev.) 16]
Bara lease a scheduled tenancy-S. 24 not applicable-Resumption without
notice may be ordered. [1961 PLD 76]
Service of notice essential before passing order of resumption under S.
24-Notice to be in accordance with S. 20, Punjab Land Revenue Act (XVII of
1887)-Notice of service on tenant of grantee-Not valid. [1960 PLD 995]

28. Sums due to 35[Government] to be recoverable as


arrears of land revenue. All sums due to 35[Government] in
respect of a tenancy granted in pursuance of the Government
Tenants (Punjab) Act, 1893, or under the provisions of this Act
or of the rules and conditions issued thereunder, and all sums
due on account of fines, confiscations, costs and penalties,
shall be recoverable as if they were arrears of land revenue.
COMMENTS
Sale through auction of land under lawful tenancy for recovery of amount
wrongly described as Tawan—Would be unlawful and would merit setting aside.
[NLR 1990 SCJ 558]
Departmental authorities functioning under the Act having passed the
order of recovery of Tawan, no court or insolvency proceedings would be
involved in the matter and in its terms S. 18 would not be applicable---Recovery
of value of crops which were unauthorisedly appropriated cannot be described as
recovery of “tawan” but it would be a simple recovery of equal value of the crops
appropriated---Land under lawful custody of a person against whom such
recovery was ordered, thus, cannot be auctioned by the support and under the
cover of Ss. 32, 33, 34 and 28 of the Act as these provisions have no real
application nor even purported application in such a case. [PLD 1990 Supreme
Court 736]
Tender for temporary cultivation---Clause in tender regarding
responsibility of tenderer for all loss to Government in case land had to be leased
out on fresh tender---Suit can be filed by Government---Amount of loss cannot be
[Section 29]
recovered as land revenue. [1959 PLD 51]
Demand of royalty by Government, if unilateral action on part of
Government, is not enforceable under Act---Royalty Payable under Act amounts
to penalty for purposes of recovery as arrears of land revenue under S. 28
[1957 PLD 58].

35
Substituted for the words “The Crown”, by West Pakistan Laws (Adaptation) Order, 1964

106
[CGL ACT, 1912]
Certificate for recovery of total sum as arrears of land revenue due issued
against one out of two joint tenderers by mistake-No intention of Government to
give up claim against other tenderer-Mistake may be rectified [1952 PLD 200].
29. Power to abrogate conditions. The 36[Board of Revenue
subject to the general approval of the Government] may at any
time by notification in the official Gazette, abrogate any of the
limitations and obligations imposed upon tenants as part of the
conditions of their tenure.
COMMENTS
Petitioners’ (retired Army personnel) applications for renewal of lease
after expiry of lease period were still pending when Authorities reduced ceiling of
entitlement of various retired Army personnel according to their ranks---
Petitioners challenged right of Authorities to change the terms of lease while their
applications for renewal of lease were pending but to no effect---High Court
found that Authorities were competent to reduce the ceiling by framing new terms
of grant---Rationale for reducing ceiling of area for allotment seemed to be that
Government wanted to accommodate more retired Army personnel under the
Scheme of Land Grant Policy---Where, however, lease was renewed up to the
period expiring in June 1996, but the same was cancelled on the ground that
petitioner’s performance was not found satisfactory, High Court had rightly
observed that petitioner could agitate such question before the forum provided
under relevant law. [1998 SCMR 1188]
Board of Revenue under delegation of powers was the authority to deal
with state land---Board of Revenue had earlier allowed appellant to retain land in
question, on condition of payment of specified price---Board of Revenue’s
subsequent notification whereby land occupied by appellant was ordered to be
resumed was prompted by judgment of High Court where one of the parties
(appellant) had gone in appeal concerning land in question, and wherein High
Court while dismissing appeal against Government had observed that
Government was not bound by the unauthorised act of Authority by transferring
land in question to appellant in exchange of land which was acquired from him---
High Court in its judgment had not issued any mandatory injunction against
Government---Subsequent order canceling land from appellant’s name[Section
was thus,
30]
result of misconception, which was declared to be without lawful authority by the
Supreme Court---Appellant was allowed to retain land in question in exchange on
payment of specified amount which he had already offered to pay. [1994 SCMR
465]
Board of Revenue Memo. No. l065070 / 1177-CL-IV, , dated 18-4--1970--
Conversion of "Dera Deh" into Abadkari- Collector, held, was fully competent to
order such conversion [1985 MLD 1277].
36
Substituted for the words “Provincial Government”, by West Pakistan Act XVI of 1957 as amended by
W.P. Ord. XXXI of 1961 which were previously substituted for the words “Local Government” by A.O.1937

107
[CGL ACT, 1912]
Land-Reservation for public purposes- Appellants petitioners having
themselves taken land on condition that they shall surrender when same needed
for evictees- Land in question excluded from conferment of proprietary rights for
having been earmarked for public purposes-Appellants petitioners, held, cannot
get relief as against persons who are being or having been allotted land in lieu of
their own lands acquired for public purposes [1983 CLC 485].

CHAPTER-III
PROVISIONS RELATING TO PROPRIETORS.
30. Acquisition of proprietary rights. (1) Notwithstanding
anything entered in any statement of conditions issued under
the Government Tenants (Punjab) Act, 1893, a tenant who,
either in pursuance of any such condition or otherwise by
agreements with, or under rules issued by the 37[Provincial
Government], has acquired proprietary rights in any land
included in his tenancy shall in respect of such land cease to be
subject to any statement of conditions issued under the above
mentioned Act; provided always that he shall in respect of such
land be bound by the conditions set out in Schedule-II of this
Act and be bound by the other provisions of this Act applicable
to proprietors of land.
38
[(2) If, at any time, the Board of Revenue is satisfied
that any person had acquired under this Act, tenancy rights in
respect of any land by means of fraud or misrepresentation or
was not eligible to have such rights for any reason whatsoever
then notwithstanding the acquisition of proprietary rights by
such person in such land or the terms and conditions of any
agreement with or rules issued by the Provincial Government
and without prejudice to any other liability or penalty to which
such person may be liable under any law for the time being in
force, the Board of Revenue may after giving such person a
reasonable opportunity of showing cause, pass an order
resuming the land in respect of which proprietary rights have

37
Substituted for the words “Government” by A.O., 1937
38
Added by the Punjab Ordinance XII of 1978

108
[Section 30]

[CGL ACT, 1912]

been acquired or reduce the area of such land or pass such


order as it may deem fit.]
COMMENTS ON SECTION 30(1)
At the time of allotment of the lands to the respondent, lands were beyond
three miles from prohibited zone, but at the time of conferment of proprietary
rights, it was shown within five miles limit prescribed in the notification---Location
of land for the purpose of conferment of proprietary rights, was to be determined
with reference to the date of allotment and not to the date of decision when
proprietary rights were conferred [2008 MLD 89].
State land located in the heart of city and possessed by Municipal
Committee since long---Sale of such land to respondent by using political
influence without applying therefor to District Collector and publication of
advertisement after relaxation of ban imposed on sale of State land through
private treaty---Cancellation of such sale by Board of Revenue after hearing all
parties---Governor referred to Member, Board of Revenue respondent's
application made after one year and seven months of passing of cancellation
order---Board of Revenue treated such application as review petition and
restored such sale without issuing notice to Government or Municipal Committee
or petitioner---Validity---Impugned order was hit by principle of audi alteram
partem---No reason was disclosed for- condonation of delay nor was such
application supported by affidavit of respondent---Review petition being barred by
time was not maintainable, thus, impugned order was not sustainable in eye of
law [2007 CLC 1858].
Proprietary rights in respect of land in possession under Fifteen years
lease scheme---Petitioner entitled for grant of proprietary rights---Petitioner failed
to deposit the installment---Colony Assistant directed the resumption of land---
Appeal dismissed---Instead of challenging the order before B.O.R., petitioner
made application to District Collector for extension of time which was allowed---
Arrears were paid in compliance with the said order---Conveyance Deed was
prepared---But some body from the village filed a complaint against petitioner---
District Collector referred the matter to commissioner for review of order of
appeal---Reference was answered in negative---Revision dismissed---Conduct of
the petitioner was not fair enough to exercise the discretion but the petitioner
associated the land for the last more than three decades---Petitioner was allowed
to continue in possession in terms of the existing policy---Petitioner shall be at
liberty to file fresh application for the grant of PRs as and when any scheme is
[Section 30(1)]
enforced [PLJ 2006 Lahore 273].
Condition in conveyance deed granting proprietary rights to petitioner in
such land is wholly void being the condition in restraint of alienation---Section 30
(1) of the Act of 1912, lays down that upon grant of proprietary rights tenant shall
seize to be subject to any statement of conditions, except the condition set out in
Schedule-II to Act, 1912---No such restraint of alienation is to be read in
Schedule-II [PLJ 2006 Lahore 1204].

109
[CGL ACT, 1912]
Acquisition of proprietary rights in favour of allottee after his death by his
attorney and subsequent sale thereof by attorney---Validity---Order of grant of
proprietary rights by executing sale-deed in favour of dead allottee was invalid
and void---Doctrine of a bona fide purchaser for consideration without notice of
defect could not be extended to an invalid and void purchase by a purported
purchaser from incompetent vendor, in whose favour sale was fundamentally
void---No rights under such sale could flow in favour of subsequent purchasers
[2006 YLR 2038].
Suit property had come out of the pale of provisions of Colonization of
Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 after conferment/acquisition of proprietary
rights, because in terms of S.30 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act,
1912 property in question ceased to be subject of any statement of conditions
under the Act---Suit, in circumstances was correctly filed without impleading the
State, impugned order of Appellate Court, was set aside declaring same as
against the provisions of law [2006 YLR 2638].
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
Commissioner for reconsideration, who found 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 it was 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 genuine and valid. No legal infirmity having been
pointed out in impugned judgment, Supreme Court dismissed petition and
refused leave to appeal. [2003 SCMR 1931]
Bara Reclamation Scheme was promulgated on 12-12-1945 envisaging
conferment of proprietary rights over half of reclaimed land allotted under such
Scheme--Period of eight years had been given for bringing barren land under
plough---No concept of prohibited limits existed in original Scheme ---Allottee had
applied for conferment of proprietary rights in 1960 after fulfilling conditions under
Scheme, thus, he or his legal heirs could not be held responsible or made to
suffer for lethargy of District Collector---Had the case been processed with
reasonable speed, same would have been completed long before establishment
[Section 30(1)]
of Town Committee bringing such land under prohibited zone---Petitioners were
not at fault---Board of Revenue directed the District Collector to process the case
for conferment of proprietary rights on petitioners in accordance with law
[2002 YLR 2412].
Proprietary rights in respect of land were granted by Assistant
Commissioner/ Collector to the allottee, but Deputy Commissioner/ Collector on
recommendation of Head Clerk Colony, ordered resumption of land by a non-

110
[CGL ACT, 1912]
speaking order and that order was upheld by Additional Commissioner—Validity
—Order passed by Assistant Commissioner/ Collector could be reviewed by
Collector only after obtaining permission of the Commissioner as provided under
S.163(2)(a)(ii), W.P. Land Revenue Act, 1967. [2001 CLC 588]
Once land was made available for allotment, it would supersede all
Notification imposing such prohibition and once allotment has been made,
presumption would be that such act was done in good faith and in a lawful
manner and in circumstances, principle of locus penitential attracted [1994 MLD
801].
Section 30 provides that after acquisition of proprietary rights by a tenant,
he shall cease to be subject to any statement of conditions issued under the
abovementioned Act but would remain bound by other provisions of this Act
applicable to the proprietors of the land. [1991 SCMR 2415]
Allottee of land from out of Chiragah—Ceases to be a tenant under Act
after payment of full sale price—Cancellation of allotment after payment of sale
price would be illegal—It can be challenged by way of civil suit [NLR 1990
Revenue 63].
Where sale price had been deposited and possession was handed over
to allottees, by the Collector, then no other Revenue Authorities even superior to
the Collector could intervene and reverse the decision of Collector. [PLD 1990
Lahore 66]
State land sold by auction with condition that if in future land became
capable of irrigation from canal, petitioner-purchasers would pay additional sum
to Government. Such condition not incorporated in formal sale deed executed in
favour of purchasers. Canal authorities subsequently included land in
commanded area requiring petitioners to obtain no objection certificate from
Collector for supply of canal water. Collector’s refusal to issue no objection
certificate unless additional sum was paid. Order of Collector unnecessarily
challenged in writ petition. Leave to appeal granted to consider contention that
said condition regarding payment of additional sum was not enforceable as it was
not included in sale deed executed in favour of petitioner predecessor-in-interest
and as such Collector was not justified in withholding no objection certificate.
[1988 SCMR 18]
Interpretation---Before executing a sale deed and conferring proprietary rights,
Collector to see that purchase money paid and conditions of sale fulfilled---
Collector has no jurisdiction to intervene after conferment of proprietary rights
even though there has been breach of some condition of sale deed---Purchaser
on execution of sale deed, held, ceases to be governed by conditions
incompatible with those actually included in sale deed---Grant of proprietary
rights---Interference---Collector, held, after grant of proprietary rights to a
purchaser, has no power to impose conditions having no basis in law---
Notwithstanding conferment of proprietary rights, tenant, held, bound only by
conditions in schedule-II and all other conditions of Act applying to proprietors

111
[Section 30(1)]

[CGL ACT, 1912]


and not to tenants, Purchaser on execution of sale deed, held, ceases to be
governed by conditions in compatible with those actually included in sale deed.
Collector, held, has no jurisdiction to himself cancel sale and resume property
after conferment of proprietary rights in view of arbitration clause in para-155-A of
Manual---Collector can enforce arbitration clause or approach Civil Court in that
behalf---Ss.4 & 15 read with Colony Manual, Vol. II, para. 155-A---Power of
collector, held, has no jurisdiction to himself cancel sale and resume property
after conferment of proprietary rights in view of arbitration clause in para. 155-A
of Manual---Collector can enforce arbitration clause or approach civil court in that
behalf---S. 30 read with Government Grants Act (XV of 1895), S.3---Proprietary
rights, grant of---Notwithstanding conferment of proprietary rights, tenant, held,
bound only by conditions in Schedule-II and all other conditions of Act, applying
to proprietors and not to tenants. [PLD 1983 Lahore 294]
Tubewell Scheme—allotment made to respondent was in two parts (113
acres 1 kanals and 19 marlas vide order dated 17.10.1952 and 52 acres 6 kanals
and 16 marlas vide order dated 13.04.1956) and for all intents and purposes
these allotments were treated as one and same tenancy—Clause (c) of
Conditions (published with Government letter No. 7943-60/4608-C(G), dated
18.06.1960) requiring respondent to exercise option of purchase in respect of
whole tenancy and not only a part thereof—limit exceeding limit of 250 acres
prescribed under conditions for purchase of proprietary rights in allotted land—
BOR exercising its powers u/s 164 (Land Revenue Act) and Government
notification No. Col-15-44-57, dated 16.02.1960, setting aside order of Collector,
canceling deed of conveyance executed in respondent’s favour and resuming
land in Government’s favour. [NLR 1979 Revenue 63]
Orders (staying registration of conveyance deed) passed by Collector in
course of proceedings under Colonization Act and not in his capacity as
Registrar under Registration Act---Appealable to Commissioner. [1978 RLR 44].
Conveyance deed executed in petitioner’s favour and proprietary rights
given---Colony staff subsequently finding four Killas of land already allotted to
another having been allotted to petitioner also and Board of Revenue canceling
petitioner’s allotment on plea of having been made by Additional Commissioner
and not by Collector---Order of Board of Revenue, held, amounted to
interference with proprietary rights of petitioner, land transferred after fulfillment
of necessary conditions could not be cancelled on such technical ground and,
[Section 30(2)]
therefore, order of cancellation without lawful authority. [PLD 1978 Lahore 148]
Valid grant cant be cancelled only in accordance with provisions of Act
and conditions of grant---Arbitrary cancellation of grant---Fit case for relief under
Art. 98, Constitution of Pakistan (1962). [PLD 1966 Supreme Court 639]
COMMENTS SECTION 30(2)
Allegation of fraud and forgery---Past and closed transaction---Authorities
reopened the case of allotment of land in favour of petitioner on the plea of fraud
and forgery---Validity---Mere allegation of fraud and forgery did not, ipso facto,

112
[CGL ACT, 1912]
vest the authorities with jurisdiction in a matter which had otherwise attained
finality---If such a course was allowed to be adopted, then there would be no end
to it---Issuance of memorandum and initiation of proceedings by authorities were
without any factual or legal justification and were declared as of no legal effect
[PLD 2009 Lahore 78].
Claim in the suit was that plaintiff was transferee of suit land from its
original allottee, but Board of Revenue cancelled allotment of original allottee
without notice to the plaintiff who was subsequent vendee---Suit filed by plaintiff
was concurrently decreed by Courts below including the High Court---Validity---In
absence of any misreading or non-reading of evidence judgment of Courts below
and High Court could not be interfered with, especially when all points raised
before High Court found properly attended to and reasonably met
[2008 SCMR 749].
Subsequent vendee had no obligation to take precautionary measures
before entering into sale agreement---Subsequent vendee was bonafide
purchaser for value without having notice about such agreement [2008 SCMR
352].
Board of Revenue is competent to cancel the land provided the tenant
has acquired the land by means of fraud or misrepresentation or was not eligible
to have such rights from any reason [PLJ 2008 Lahore 216].
Board of Revenue was competent to cancel the allotment of land
provided the tenant had acquired the land by means of fraud or
misrepresentation; or was not eligible to have such rights for any reason---Case
of the petitioner did not fall within the ambit of provisions of S.30(1)(b) of
Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 [2008 CLC 825].
If provisions of S. 30 of Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act,
1912 was to be invoked by Member, Board of Revenue, then there must have
been a notice issued to allottee, specifying and pointing out the allegations of the
kind of fraud or misrepresentation which allegedly was committed by original
allottee, in process of obtaining state land and its formal conveyance deed [2007
YLR 1008].
Petitioner purchased land in question from the allottee who had been
granted proprietary rights---Board of Revenue subsequently, found allotment a
result of fraud and misrepresentation, therefore, conveyance deed in favour of
allottee was cancelled---Grievance of petitioner was that such action could not
have been taken by Board of Revenue without providing him an opportunity of
hearing---Validity---Words “show cause” meant to make clear or apparent, as by
evidence, testimony, or reasoning to prove---Expression “after giving such
person a reasonable opportunity of showing cause” was not idle or empty form, it
contained a very solitary and substantial provision of law; as such the expression
did not mean that only an opportunity was to be given for offering explanation
against proposed action in S. 30 (2) of Colonization of Government Lands
(Punjab) Act, 1912---Adequate opportunity not only to offer explanation against

113
[Section 30(2)]

[CGL ACT, 1912]


proposed action but also to produce defence was to be given---Words “showing
cause” in S. 30 (2) of Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912, did
not imply that mere opportunity of submitting an explanation was enough which
implied that adequate opportunity of leading evidence in support of contentions of
person concerned and to controvert the contention raised against him must be
given---Giving an opportunity of hearing should be granted to petitioner by Board
of Revenue in the interest of justice [2007 CLC 1123].
Land in dispute was duly allotted to petitioners under "Grow More Food
Scheme" and petitioners were delivered possession of said land, but allotment
order in favour of petitioners, subsequently was withdrawn by Member Board of
Revenue exercising suo motu powers of review--- Orders passed in review were
declared to have been passed without any lawful authority and were of no legal
effect [2006 PLD 418].
Power given to Board of Revenue is exercisable upon satisfaction that a
person has acquired tenancy rights by means of fraud or misrepresentation that
he was not eligible to have such rights for any reason whatsoever---Petitioner
had acquired tenancy rights by means of fraud or that he was ineligible to have
such rights [PLJ 2006 Lahore 1204].
Petitioner, who was allotted land in question under Five Year’s Lease
Scheme, was held eligible for conferment of proprietary rights and a conveyance
deed was executed and registered in his favour---Said conveyance deed
subsequently was cancelled under S. 30 (2) of Colonization of Government
Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 on ground that petitioner had alienated said land---
Contention of petitioner was that alleged alienations were made by him in favour
of his mother and his sons and not for seeking profits or enrichment---Validity---
Provisions of S. 30 (1) of Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912
had laid down in clear terms that upon grant of proprietary rights, tenant would
cease to be subject to any Statement of Condition, except the condition set out in
Schedule-II to the Act---No such restraint of alienation was to be read in said
Schedule-II---Respondents had purported to act under subsection (2) of S. 30 of
Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 while passing impugned
order---Power given to the Board of Revenue under S. 30 (2) OF Colonization of
Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 was exercisable only upon satisfaction
that a person had acquired tenancy rights under the Act by means of fraud or
misrepresentation or that he was not eligible to have such rights for[Section
any reason
30(2)]
whatsoever---No allegation was leveled that petitioner had acquired initial
tenancy rights by means of fraud or misrepresentation or that he was not legible
to have such rights---Impugned order, in circumstances was set aside being
wholly without jurisdiction, illegal, void and without lawful authority [2006 CLC
1748].
Land permanently settled on the allottee could not be cancelled, the
proviso conferring such jurisdiction had been removed from the statute book---
Order of cancellation was thus without lawful authority [2006 YLR 1915].

114
[CGL ACT, 1912]
ACQUISITION OF LAND. Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act
(V of 1912). Ss 16 & 30(2)---Board of Revenue can proceed against
fraudulent transfers of tenancy rights obtained through misrepresentation
under Ss. 16 & 30(2) of Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act,
1912 but not with regard to land permanently settled on the allottees---
Where the respondents had paid the entire price of land, had deposited all
the other incidental charges and had taken over the possession of the land,
in such circumstances, their allotment could not be cancelled---Board of
Revenue was not equipped with any authority even to cancel allotment in
favour of the respondent, after receipt of price and execution of sale deed
[PLJ 2005 Lahore 1175, 2004 MLD 441& 2004 YLR 1650].
Board of Revenue was not empowered with any authority even to cancel
allotment in favour of the respondent after receipt of price and execution of sale-
deed. Absence of fraud or misrepresentation – power Under Section 30 (2) could
not be exercised by the Board of Revenue without holding inquiry. Order of
Board of Revenue based on the notification relating to the fact that the allotment
to the respondents fell within prohibitory zone of Municipal Limits was not a good
ground to cancel the allotment because once land made available for allotment
and was transferred and settled on the respondents, it would supersede all the
notification imposing prohibitions [PLJ 2005 Lahore 1175].
S.30(2) only empowers Board of Revenue cancellation of tenancy rights
obtained through fraud or misrepresentation. This power cannot be exercised by
Board of Revenue in a case of transferee from allottee who had paid the entire
sale price and purchase documents were executed in his favour---Provisions of
notice before cancellation of allotment under S.30(2) is a statutory requirement---
Board of Revenue can proceed under Ss. 16 and 30(2) against transfer of
tenancy/ lease rights obtained through misrepresentation but not with regard to
permanently settled land made in favour of allottees---Powers to resume tenancy
rights under S.30(2) are subject to certain pre-requisites prescribed in S.30(2).
Cancellation of allotment and resumption of land in absence of satisfaction of
these requisites would be illegal and not sustainable in law. Order under S.30(2)
would be a void order---Transfer of land and its permanent settlement in favour of
allottee would supersede all prohibitions against allotment of such land. In such
case, Board of Revenue under the principles of locus poenitentiae would not be
justified to cancel such allotment as according to presumption of law it would be
presumed that allotment and permanent settlement of land in favour of allottee
[Section 30(2)]
was done in lawful manner. [NLR 2005 Revenue 52]
Jurisdiction to scrutinize tenancy/ lease rights under the Colonization of
Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 having been removed, Authority was not
equipped with any power to cancel allotment in favour of a tenant permanently
settled [2004 YLR 1650].
After death of original lessee, his sons who neither remained members of
Cooperative Farming Society of the Chak concerned nor were resident thereof
nor even remained in self-cultivation of land in dispute, by committing fraud and

115
[CGL ACT, 1912]
misrepresenting facts, got conveyance deed of proprietary rights in their favour in
respect of land in dispute---Self-cultivation of land being basic condition for grant
of proprietary rights under Cooperative Farming Scheme, order of District
Collector granting conveyance deed to sons of the original lessee was unlawful
and void---Conveyance deed issued in favour of sons of original lessee being
based on misrepresentation, illegality and fraud was cancelled under section
30(2) [2004 CLC 40].
Person owning land equal to or more than subsisting holding and not in
cultivating possession of leased land or having acquired land in any other
scheme was not entitled to grant of proprietary rights---Petitioners had failed to
fulfill conditions prerequisite for grant of proprietary rights under such
notification---Petitioners had acquired proprietary rights through fraud or
misrepresentation---Board of Revenue had rightly cancelled conveyance deed in
exercise of powers under section 30 (b) of the Act [2004 CLC 108].
Respondent was allotted state land as an oustee from Islamabad Capital
Territory, when there was no prohibition on its allotment and it was not Chiragah.
In absence of any violation of the terms and conditions of the grant by the
respondent, neither the administration and/ or Member, Board of Revenue nor
the Civil Courts had any jurisdiction to undo his grant [2002 SCMR 807].
Where acquisition of tenancy was result of fraud and misrepresentation or
the person was not eligible to have such rights, Board of Revenue could exercise
power under S.30(2) of Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912---
As no fraud or misrepresentation had been committed by the petitioners nor they
had suffered from any ineligibility in securing allotment/ grant of proprietary rights
of the land, the jurisdictional facts for invoking the extraordinary power under
S.30(2) of Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912, were lacking
and missing—Settled rights of parties could not be interfered with on general
unsubstantial allegations. [2002 YLR 2310]
Power of District Officer Revenue (defunct Collector) to cancel sale and
resume land---Scope---Such purchaser would still remain subject to statement of
conditions as provided in S.3 of Government Grants Act, 1895---District Officer
Revenue, in case of breach of any of conditions of grant itself, could cancel sale
and resume land even after conferment of proprietary right---Where terms and
conditions of grant were not fulfilled, there would be no legal bar or any embargo
[Section 30(2)]
to cancel or modify a grant [2002 YLR 2615].
Powers vested in Authorities under S.30(2) of Colonization of
Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 were available to Authorities only for the
period during which transferees from Government retained title of suit-land and
said powers could not have been exercised after transferees had further
conveyed land to bona fide purchasers. [2002 YLR 3788]
Allotment of land. Cancellation. Land in question was reserved for
permanent scheme of the Islamabad Oustees. Predecessor-in-interest of the
respondents was allotted the same who had paid entire price and the Deed of

116
[CGL ACT, 1912]
Conveyance was also registered in his favour. Appellant assailed the allotment
on the ground that the land had already been allotted to him under the Grow
More Food Scheme which allotment was cancelled by the Board of Revenue
under the provisions of S. 30(2) of Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab)
Act, 1912. High Court in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction set aside the order
of Board of Revenue and the allotment was restored in favour of the
respondents. Validity. Record did not show that the land in question was ever
allotted to the appellant under the Grow More Food Scheme. Respondents had
been dragged unnecessarily by the appellant in the litigation. Judgment passed
by High Court was based on the accepted principles and there was no irregularity
or illegality therein requiring interference by Supreme Court. [2001 SCMR 1283]
S. Under Section 30(2) –- Voidable conveyance – Voidable conveyance
remains effective and does not, in any manner, impair the rights of the vendee to
deal with the land conveyed, untill the same is set aside on the ground of fraud.
Any such subsequent determination by Board of Revenue could not possibly
affect the title of the petitioners as the same was acquired at a time when such
title was vested in the respondent – Not open to the Board of Revenue to resume
the land which already stood vested in the petitioners prior to the date of
resumption in exercise of powers under S. 30 (2) of Colonization of Government
Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912, –- Order of Board of Revenue was set aside [2000
CLC 953].
Cancellation of allotment by order of Revenue Authorities---Respondent
obtained decree from Civil Court in his favour as far back as 1974---State did not
appeal and on basis of said decree mutation was sanctioned in favour of
respondent---State subsequently moved Board of Revenue in terms of S. 30 (2)
(b), Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 for cancellation of
allotment in favour of respondent---Effect---Board of Revenue refused to invoke
provision of S. 30(2) (b) of the Act in favour of state on account of its inaction
against decree of Civil Court granted in favour of respondent and its moving for
cancellation of allotment so belatedly---Provision of S. 30(2) (b), Colonization of
Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912, does not give open ended authority to
Board of Revenue to set aside a deed at any time. [1996 MLD 258]
Resumption of land--- Requirements--- Inquiry resulting in the resumption of
order must be held by the Board of Revenue itself. Further the power to
resume is subject to the necessary condition precedent that the tenancy
rights had been acquired by means of fraud and misrepresentation. Whether
[Section 30(2)]
there was fraud or misrepresentation is, therefore, a jurisdictional fact and it
is upon the establishment of that fact that the power of the Board of Revenue
to resume land depends [1993 Law Notes (Lahore) 67, PLD 1993 Lahore
114].
Power to resume was however, subject to the necessary condition
precedent that tenancy rights had been acquired by means of fraud or
misrepresentation, such fact being jurisdictional fact, power of Board of Revenue

117
[CGL ACT, 1912]
to resume such land would depend upon the establishment of fact [PLD 1993
Lahore 114].
Plot in question, having been allotted to petitioner and he having fulfilled
terms and conditions of allotment same could not be cancelled due to
subsequent change of policy by the Chief Minister [1993 CLC 376].
Powers of cancellation of allotment u/s 30(2) vest in Board of Revenue.
Exercise of these powers by Colony Assistant would be unwarranted and without
jurisdiction. [NLR 1992 Revenue 198]
Petition for leave to appeal merited dismissal on the short ground that
against the order of High Court, Member, Board of Revenue did not file Intra
Court appeal—Even otherwise Board of Revenue’s order being violative of the
provisions of S.30(2), Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 was
not legally maintainable—No question of law of public importance having been
raised for examination in petition—Leave to appeal was refused. [1990 SCMR
1008]
Power u/s 30(2)—Not confined to cases of misrepresentation or fraud—It
can be invoked to examine eligibility and merits of case. [NLR 1987 Revenue
161]
Once proprietary rights have been conferred on tenant such tenant, held,
was required to be given show cause notice before resuming his land under S.
30 (2) of Act v of 1912 [1986 MLD 2065].
Special horse breeding grant--Conditions--Renewal of leases subject to
good performance as to breeding of horses as well as due compliance of terms
and conditions of grant with powers to resume tenancy on expiry of term vesting
in Government-- Renewal of grant refused on ground of lessees having bad
record of which they were not given any notice nor provided any opportunity of
defending themselves--Held, such decision was clearly adverse to lessees and
reflected upon their performance as breeders and in this view of matter lessees
were entitled to be given opportunity to defend themselves before passing any
such order [1985 SCMR 9].
Board of Revenue empowered to resume land in respect of which
proprietary rights had been acquiring by fraud or misrepresentation or on account
of ineligibility of a lessee – Order tainted with fraud or misrepresentation, held,
could not be allowed to attain finality [1985 CLC 1645].
Purchase was allowed in favour of respondent after fulfilling [Section
all formalities
30-A]
and even appeals filed against transfer rejected by judicial orders---Held,
proceeding under S. 30(2) of Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act,
1912 against respondent not justified. [PLD 1985 Rev. 8]
Conveyance deed not showing any restriction on vendee of state to
further sell land—Litigation before Deputy Commissioner/ Collector was only for
correction of field number of land, sold to respondents, in mutation—No fraud or
misrepresentation practiced in obtaining sale of land—Held, there was no

118
[CGL ACT, 1912]
sufficient ground or justification to invoke suo motu jurisdiction under S.30(2)
[PLD 1985 Rev. 19]
Resumption of land after conferment of proprietary rights and execution of
sale deed—Board of Revenue empowered to interfere in its revisional jurisdiction
with order tainted with fraud or misrepresentation. [NLR 1985 Revenue 56]
Board of Revenue competent to suo motu cancel allotment obtained by
misrepresentation—In circumstances, Board exercising suo motu power and
revoking conveyance deed executed in favour of respondent lambardar and also
canceling mutation. [NLR 1984 Revenue 142]
Allotment of charagah land in 1956---Its cancellation on ground that land
being charagah land was not available for allotment---Unwarranted---Held. This
view is against terms of scheme and cannot effect rights of allottee [NLR 1983
Revenue 251].
Insertion of Sub-section (2) to S.30—Retrospective insertion of sub-
section (2) empowers BOR to resume land in respect of which proprietary rights
have been acquired by fraud or misrepresentation or on account of ineligibility of
a lessee. [NLR 1979 Revenue 63]
Land transferred after fulfillment of necessary conditions could not be
cancelled on such technical ground and, therefore, order of cancellation without
lawful authority [PLD 1978 Lahore 148].
Full price of land having been paid and sale deed executed and
registered in favour of tenant – Government and its functionaries, of held,
cannot retrace steps and reclaim PLD 1978 Lahore 1146.
39
[30-A. Right of alienation in respect of and rule of
succession to certain proprietary rights acquired by a
female. (1) Notwithstanding any custom and the provisions of
any law to the contrary, when after the commencement of the
Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Amendment Act,
1944, proprietary rights in any land are acquired by a female
tenant, her rights of alienation of any such land shall be the
same:-

39
Inserted by the Punjab Act VI of 1944

119
[CGL ACT, 1912] [Section 30-A]

(a) if she succeeded to the tenancy directly or indirectly


from a male tenant, as if the proprietary rights had
been acquired by the last male tenant, and she had
succeeded to such rights as his heir; and
(b) if the tenancy was first allotted on account of some
male person, either to her, or to another female to
whom she succeeded either directly or in a
continuous line of female succession, as if the
proprietary rights had been acquired by such male
person and she had succeeded to such rights as his
heir, and in cases falling under clause (a) or clause
(b) in the event of such female proprietor dying
while in possession of the proprietary rights in
question, the said rights shall devolve upon the
persons who would be entitled to succeed, if such
rights had been acquired by the last male tenant, or
the male person on whose account the tenancy was
first allotted, as the case may be.
(2) Nothing herein contained shall be construed to alter
the law of succession applicable to any female tenant, in
respect of proprietary rights in land acquired by her, if the
tenancy in such land was acquired by or accrued to her in
circumstances other than those specified in sub section (1).
(3) For the purposes of this section the expression “any
such land” shall be deemed to include any land obtained in
exchange for part or all of the land in which proprietary rights
have been acquired.]
COMMENTS
Allottee of land. Allottee died before obtaining proprietary rights.
Inheritance of. Whether appellant acquired her share as full owner or limited
owner. Question of Mst. Bakhtawar’s case was not of estates devolution to a
female from a male last holder under section 30-A (a) or (b). Her case was
covered by Section 30-A (2) of Act. Held: On obtaining proprietary rights, Mst.
Bakhtawar shall have to be treated as full owner of property in dispute. Appeal
accepted. [PLJ 1993 SC 406]

120
[CGL ACT, 1912] [Section 30-A]

Female tenant whose case is not covered by sub-section (1) shall, on


obtaining proprietary rights, have to be treated as full owner of property. [NLR
1993 SCJ 362]
Original owner had not yet paid the proprietary dues when his death took
place. Widow having paid the proprietary dues and obtained proprietary rights
was to be treated as full owner of the property. [1993 SCMR 1094]
Limited estate holder succeeding to original tenant and acquiring
proprietary rights in 1956 would be governed by S. 2A, Muslim Personal Law
(Shariat) Application Act V of 1962 [inserted by Amendment Ord. XIII of 1983].
On acquisition of proprietary rights limited female owner would not become full
owner but her rights would be subject to Shariat. Held. Finding of Courts below
that on acquisition of proprietary rights limited female owner (daughter of original
tenant) had become full owner was clearly untenable. [NLR 1991 SCJ 783]
Last Muslim male owner having died issue less, his property was
devolved upon his widows in 1939. Such widow after having paid Government
dues in respect of said land acquired proprietary rights and thereafter sold it to
defendants. Plaintiffs; suit on basis of being heirs of last male owner claiming ¾
share of his property was dismissed by Trial Court, but was decreed on appeal
by First Appellate Court which was up held by the High Court in revision.
Defendants’ contentions that their case was governed by S. 30-A and not by S.
19-A of Act V of 1912 and that vendor widow being full owner of disputed land
was entitled to alienate it and that by provisions of S. 2-A of the amended Act V
of 1962, plaintiffs’ suit stood abated, had also been raised before High Court and
had been attended to. No interference, held, was called for by Supreme Court in
the light of principle laid down by Supreme Court. [1989 SCMR 1958]
Estate held by a Muslim female u/s 30-A (1) before enforcement of
Shariat Application Act, 1962 was in reality a limited estate held under custom.
Judgment and decree passed by Trial court and affirmed in first and second
appeals on view that estate of Muslim female acquiring proprietary rights u/s 30-
A was not hit by Shariat Application Act set aside by Supreme Court. [1983
SCMR 80]
Female succeeds to property of last male tenant as his heir—As such her
succession would open to heirs of last male tenant upon death or remarriage of
female proprietor—Contention that limited estate of female held by her u/s 30-A
of Act, 1912 would not be hit by Shariat. [NLR 1982 UC 389]
Words “on account of some male person”—Husband applying for grant of
land under Darya burdi scheme but dying before actual grant—Land
subsequently, sanctioned in husband’s name but mutated in widow’s name as
his successor—Widow paying malikana, acquiring proprietary rights and gifting
away land to another—Widow granted land not in her own right but “on account
of some male person”—Widow in circumstances did not become full owner and
could not gift away property so as to deprive husband’s heirs. [1970 SCMR 246]

121
[CGL ACT, 1912] [Sections 31& 32]

Ss. 20 and 21 govern succession to “tenant”. Not applicable where


proprietary rights have been acquired and tenancy ceases to exist---Daughter
succeeding to tenancy and paying up government dues for transfer of proprietary
rights---Becomes owner of land in her own right subject to limitations provided in
S. 30-A of the Act. [PLD 1961 Baghdad-ul-Jadid 52]

CHAPTER-IV
SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS
31. Mares, camels or their progeny maintained under
prescribed conditions not to be attached or sold. No mare
or camel or other animal maintained in accordance with any
prescribed statement of conditions and no progeny, if less than
eighteen months old, of any mare or camel so maintained, shall
be liable to attachment or sale in execution of any decree.

32. Power of re-entry in case of squatters and


trespassers. When the Collector is satisfied that any person
has taken or is in possession of land in a colony to which he
has no right or title, the Collector may, in addition to any other
powers he may possess, forthwith re-enter upon the land and
resume possession of it and take possession of all crops, trees
and buildings thereon on behalf of 40[Government] without
payment of any compensation whatsoever.
COMMENTS
Once petitioners were allowed to cultivate the barren land in dispute, they
could not have been ejected from said land which was developed by them—No
doubt the possession of the petitioners over the land in dispute was illegal, but
their longstanding possession over said land could not be overlooked—Accepting
revision, impugned orders were set aside, with direction to the Authority to look
into the matter, consider the claim of petitioners, scrutinize the record and after
hearing them should decide the case [2008 CLC 312].
Allotment got by fraudulent means---Effect---Subsequent possession of
such person would amount to encroachment and being encroacher, question of
entitlement would not arise [2005 SCMR 1673].
Allotment of land to Islamabad affectees---Petitioners though not allottees
of any portion of disputed land under any scheme filed Constitutional petition,
which was dismissed by High Court---Contention of petitioners was that they as

40
Substituted for the words “The Crown”, by West Pakistan Laws (Adaptation) Order, 1964

122
[CGL ACT, 1912] [Section 32]

trespassers were in possession of land, which they were entitled to retain as


Government was legally bound to provide them shelter---Validity---Same could
not be a ground available in law to contest claim of allottees under Islamabad
Oustees Scheme---Trespasser could not claim any right to maintain
Constitutional petition---Petitioners should have independently approached
Government for providing them shelter and not to challenge allotment made
lawfully in favour of respondents as Islamabad affectees under a scheme framed
for them [2004 SCMR 779].
Right of hearing under provisions of S. 32 of Colonization of Government
Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912---Scope---Such provisions neither exclude right of
hearing to person likely to be affected nor determination there-under can be
made at the back of person in possession [2003 CLC 1922].
Resumption of State land from illegal occupant---Petitioner's contention
was that he being sub-tenant under original tenant was entitled to grant of
proprietary rights Validity---Nothing on record was available to show that
petitioner had been a sub-tenant under the original allottee--Perusal of Khasra
Girdawari indicated the petitioner to be an illegal, occupant --- Revision petition
was dismissed in circumstances [2002 YLR 2591].
Contention of petitioner was that he had constructed house over the land
in dispute and wets living there since long, thus, was eligible for grant of
proprietary rights under Board of Revenue, Punjab Policy Letters of 1988 and
1993---Status of petitioner was that of an encroacher, who could not be allowed
to retain land in question---Collector had correctly ordered ejectment of petitioner
and no injustice had been done to him---Board of Revenue dismissed revision
petition in circumstances [2002 YLR 2584].
Land in illegal occupation of petitioners---Auction of such land--
Contention of petitioners was that neither arty notice of auction was given to
them nor proper advertisement was made; and that they were prepared to offer
Rs.18,000 as against the highest bid of Rs.11,500---Validity--Large number of
properties including disputed land had been duly advertised in a national Daily---
No ground was made out for interference with auction proceedings of disputed
land in favour of highest bidder--Board of Revenue dismissed revision petition in
circumstances [2002 YLR 2406]
Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.42---Suit for declaration---Title in respect
of State land---Case set up in the plaint was that Municipal Committee had been
in possession of the suit land for about fifty years and had always considered
itself to be the owner in possession of the land---Suit was contested by the
Authority contending that land throughout belonged to the Provincial Government
and at no stage was given to the Municipal Committee---Mere treatment by
plaintiff-Committee of suit land as its own for number of years, was not enough to
vest title in it nor the grant of lease of land by it to various persons or even
alternation of proprietary rights would suffice to constitute Municipal Committee
as the owner of land which was a State land [2001 MLD 1916] .

123
[CGL ACT, 1912] [Section 32]

Where Collector is satisfied that any person has taken or is in possession


of land in colony to which that person has no right or title, Collector is competent
under S.32, Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 to resume
possession of that land [2000 YLR 2498].
Appropriate action proposed by Assistant Commissioner against
petitioner was maintained up to Board of Revenue—High Court on basis of
material on record had found that petitioner had been shown as illegal occupant
of land in question, in Khasra Girdawari, therefore, he was not entitled to any
relief in equitable and discretionary jurisdiction of Court—Leave to appeal was
refused in circumstances. [1999 SCMR 1331]
Question as to who are allottees of land in Cholistan areas and who were
occupying it unauthorisedly is a question of fact which is to be determined on
basis of allotment orders/ title documents to be produced by alleged allottees
before competent forum. Occupants who have no title would have no legal right
to remain in occupation, and, therefore, they would be liable to be ejected.
Supreme Court remanding cases to Board of Revenue to proceed in the matter
in accordance with requirements of Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab)
Act, 1912. [NLR 1999 Revenue 1]
Petitioners/plaintiffs got possession of a pond existing in "Charagah",
filled the same and constructed their houses thereon---Process under Ss.32 & 34
of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912, was initiated
against the petitioners/plaintiffs---Plaintiffs filed suit for declaration to the effect
that they being in possession of said land had the possessionary rights of the
property which was not allotted to them under any scheme---Trial Court
dismissed the suit under O. VII, R.11, C. P.C. and the order was upheld by the
lower Appellate Court---Validity---No proprietary rights could be conferred upon
the unauthorised occupants of the property---Judgment of the Trial Court and
that of the lower Appellate Court was modified to the extent that the plaint was
rejected [1999 CLC 1396].
Request of petitioners for regularization of their unlawful occupation over
said land, was rejected, but keeping in view long affiliation of petitioners with land
in dispute since independence, petitioners, were allowed to purchase on
payment of current market price with 50% penalty for un authorised possession
and 10% surcharge [1996 MLD 751].
Notice issued to petitioner for vacating land in question was set aside and
respondents were directed to allow petitioner to participate in open katchery for
disposal of land in question as and when such occasion would arise and till then
he would not be dispossessed [1996 CLC 676].
Plaintiff was not recognized a tenant in occupation of Government land---
Ejectment--- Courts below had directed Government that plaintiff should not be
ejected from the land in question, except in accordance with law [1994 CLC
1663].

124
[CGL ACT, 1912] [Section 32]

Upon payment of purchase price for the state land and conferment of
proprietary rights in it, land in question, would go beyond the pale of S. 32/ 34,
Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912---Land in question, having
ceased to be state land, dispute regarding title between two private parties could
not be adjudicated upon under S. 32, Colonization of Government Lands
(Punjab) Act, 1912---Such question could only be dealt with by a Civil Court.
[1994 MLD 1381]
Section 32 empowers Collector to dispossess squatters and trespassers
and resume possession of the land and all crops, trees and buildings thereupon
without payment of any compensation whatsoever---Section 32 would apply only
in respect of squatters and trespassers on the government land and in such a
case Collector was empowered to resume possession of the land and also the
crops, trees and buildings without payment of any compensation---For want of
sanction in writing as provided under S. 19 for the reason that both remedies
under Ss.19 & 32 being different in nature would apply in different situations---
Question as to possession of land in dispute---Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise
of---Revenue Officer being the competent Authority should have been allowed to
bring the proceedings to a finale so far as question of possession of disputed
land was concerned---Interference by High Court under Constitutional jurisdiction
with regard to possession of property was not justified---Section 32 of
Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 is not intended to be
operated for the benefit of one private party contending against the other. In
other words any dispute regarding title between two private parties cannot be
adjudicated upon under section 32---Disputes with regard to title between private
parties are to be settled and adjudicated upon in the Civil Courts and raising such
plea cannot stop Revenue Authorities from performing their functions under
section 19 and 32 of the Act unless stay order is brought from the Civil Court.
[1991 SCMR 2415]
Provision of S.32 does not exclude right of hearing to persons likely to be
affected—Determination u/s 32 cannot be made at back of person in possession.
[NLR 1991 Revenue 21]
Order directing eviction of an encroacher passed without giving him
opportunity of being heard, cannot be sustained as it is violative of law. [NLR
1991 Revenue 99]
No order adverse to the interest of a person could be passed without
granting him opportunity of being heard---While deciding whether petitioner was
encroacher, he should have been associated with the enquiry being conducted
by the Assistant Commissioner---Order in question was thus, violative of law and
same was not sustainable---Collector, however, could proceed afresh in
accordance with law after granting opportunity to petitioner of being heard. [1991
MLD 2394]
Recovery of value of crops which were unauthorisedly appropriated
cannot be described as recovery of “tawan” but it would be a simple recovery of

125
[CGL ACT, 1912] [Section 32]

equal value of the crops appropriated---Land under lawful custody of a person


against whom such recovery was ordered, thus, cannot be auctioned by the
support and under the cover of Ss. 32, 33, 34 and 28 of the Act as these
provisions have no real application nor even purported application in such a
case. [PLD 1990 Supreme Court 736]
Revenue Officer cannot press into service S. 32 or S. 19 for benefit of a
private party for resolving a private dispute regarding colony land between two
private parties---Person in possession of land in violation of S. 19, could be
ejected from land by Collector but such ejectment should be for benefit of
Government and not for benefit of person who might have himself committed
breach of said provisions---Section 32 has been provided for to protect interest of
government and not to provide forum to a private party to resolve private dispute
[PLD 1984 Karachi 413]
Unauthorized occupant of Government land—Ejectment—Order, held in
circumstances of case, was not open to exception. [NLR 1981 Revenue 62]
Fact that application initially moved before Collector was made u/s 32 or
under any other provision of law—Not important—Collector is competent to act in
circumstances of case under any provisions of law applicable to facts of case
[NLR 1981 Revenue 175]
Unauthorised occupant of Government land. Ejectment order, held, in
circumstances of case, was not open to exception. [1981 SCMR 1064]
Temporary lease only having been granted to allottee, question of sharing
property on acquisition of any right did not arise. Status of petitioner is no more
than that of a trespasser and he is liable to be dispossessed u/s 32. [1981 CLC
1204]
Collector not empowered to impose penalty or fine for encroachments on
State agricultural land by claimants under 5-marlas scheme—Any encroachment
on State land for residential purposes can be dealt with either u/s 32 by resuming
possession of land alongwith any constructions thereon or/ u/s 33(b), (d) read
with S.34. [NLR 1980 Revenue BOR 126]
Unless there be a possibility of creation of relationship of landlord and
tenant between the Government and the persons said to be holding adversely to
the tenant. This view is confirmed by the legal provision that transfer of
possession in contravention of provisions of section 19 is void and a person in
unauthorised possession can be evicted by use of force under section 32 [PLD
1978 Lahore 1228].
Transfer of possession in contravention of S. 19 is void and unauthorised
possessor can be evicted under S. 32. [PLJ 1978 Lahore 475]
Period of tenancy expiring but tenant continuing in possession—position
of such tenant, not that of a trespasser but that of a “Tenant holding over”
[PLD 1973 Lahore 528].

126
[CGL ACT, 1912] [Section 33]

33. Penalties. If any person, without permission of a


Revenue Officer of a grade to be specified by the 41[Board of
Revenue]: -
a) clears or breaks up for cultivation, or cultivates any
land which is owned by, or is in the possession of
42
[Government] and is not included in any tenancy
or allotted residential enclosure or which has been
set apart for the common purposes of a town or
village community or section of the same or for a
road, canal or water course; or
b) erects any building on any such land;
or
c) fells or otherwise destroys standing
trees on such land; or
d) otherwise encroaches on any such
land; or
e) makes an excavation or constructs a
water channel on any such land he shall, on
complaint made by order of or under authority from
the Collector, be punished on conviction by any
Magistrate with a fine not exceeding 43[two hundred
thousand rupees or with rigorous imprisonment not
exceeding six months or with both].
Explanation:- The felling of trees planted by an owner or
tenants on any village road or water course traversing his
holding is not an offence under this section.
COMMENTS
Petitioner on whom Tawan was imposed for illicit cultivation of state land
had contended that he was in fact a lessee of land in dispute, but he could not
substantiate his version—Petitioner who was occupying land in dispute without
41
Substituted for the words “Financial Commissioner”, by West Pakistan Act XVI of 1957
42
Substituted for the words “Provincial Government”, by West Pakistan Act XVI of 1957 as amended by
W.P. Ord. XXXI of 1961 which were previously substituted for the words “Local Government” by A.O.1937
43
Substituted for the words “five thousand rupees or with rigorous imprisonment not exceeding six months
or with both”, by the Notification No. Legis:3(XXVIII), dated 28.06.1999, which was previously substituted
for the words “Rs.200/-“, by the Notification No. Legis:3(2)/83, dated 18.01.1983.

127
[CGL ACT, 1912]
[Section 34]
any lawful authority was rightly imposed Tawan by Assistant Commissioner/
Collector—Amount of Tawan being too much, same was reduced by 50% and
order of Collector was modified accordingly in revision. [1994 CLC 2108]
Recovery of value of crops which were unauthorisedly appropriated
cannot be described as recovery of “tawan” but it would be a simple recovery of
equal value of the crops appropriated---Land under lawful custody of a person
against whom such recovery was ordered, thus, cannot be auctioned by the
support and under the cover of Ss. 32, 33, 34 and 28 of the Act as these
provisions have no real application nor even purported application in such a
case. [PLD 1990 Supreme Court 736]

34. Additional powers of Collector in regard to offences.


When the Collector is satisfied that an act punishable under
section 33 has been committed, he may in lieu of proceeding
against the offender under that section or after conviction of the
offender under that section: -
(i) in the case of an offence under section 33(a),
confiscate the crops growing on any land cultivated
in contravention of this Act or, if the crops have
been cut, recover such sum as he may assess as
the value thereof from the offender,
(ii) in the case of an offence under section 33(c),
recover such sum as he may assess as the value of
the trees or tree destroyed;
(iii) In the case of an offence under section 33 (b), (d),
or (e), cause the building or other encroachment to
be demolished or removed or the excavation or
channels to be filled up and levy the costs of so
doing from the person responsible for such act.
COMMENTS
Legal heirs remaining in possession of land after death of the original
lessee---Demand of “Tawan” by Authority---Validity---Petitioners had not
occupied land forcibly or illegally, but had continued their possession under
impression that they, as legal heirs of original lessee, were entitled to grant of its
proprietary rights---Authority had not taken legal action for resumption of land
from petitioner---Petitioner could not be penalized for such default of authority---
High Court set aside levy of “Tawan” on petitioners [2004 CLC 108].

128
[CGL ACT, 1912]
Payment of “Tawan” for unauthorized occupation of land would not be
[Section 34]
sufficient to term un-authorized possession of property into permissive
possession---Plaintiffs thus, had no cause of action, therefore, their plaint was
rightly rejected by courts below calling for no interference in revisional jurisdiction
[PLJ 2003 Lahore 150].
Petitioners being encroachers having shown their high-handedness twice
by occupying land which was in lawful cultivating occupation of allottees,
cancellation of allotment from names of original allottees and subsequent
allotment in the names of petitioners/ encroachers by Assistant Commissioner/
Collector was not justified in circumstances. [1995 MLD 246]
Upon payment of purchase price for the state land and conferment of
proprietary rights in it, land in question, would go beyond the pale of S. 32/ 34,
Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912---Land in question, having
ceased to be state land, dispute regarding title between two private parties could
not be adjudicated upon under S. 32, Colonization of Government Lands
(Punjab) Act, 1912---Such question could only be dealt with by a Civil Court.
[1994 MLD 1381]
Petitioner challenged order of authorities levying tawan on him
contending that he was not in illicit cultivation of land in dispute, but was tenant/
pattedar under respondents/ allottees---In Khasra Girdawari for relevant years,
suit land in cultivation column, had been shown to be in name of respondents/
allottees through petitioner which had established that land was sublet by
allottees to petitioner in contravention of S. 19 of Act, 1912 and as such petitioner
had entered upon land in dispute and cultivated it under authority given by
allottees to whom land stood validly allotted---Respondents/ allottees did not
challenge such entries in Revenue Re cord anywhere, thus by implication they
had not denied relationship of land lord and tenant between parties---In view of
such relations between parties, petitioner, could not be said to be a trespasser
and thus he could not be said to be in illicit cultivation of state land [1993 MLD
1934].
No order adverse to the interest of a person could be passed without
granting him opportunity of being heard---While deciding whether petitioner was
encroacher, he should have been associated with the enquiry being conducted
by the Assistant Commissioner---Order in question was thus, violative of law and
same was not sustainable---Collector, however, could proceed afresh in
accordance with law after granting opportunity to petitioner of being heard. [1991
MLD 2394]
Sale through auction of law under lawful tenancy for recovery of amount
wrongly described as Tawan—Would be unlawful and would merit setting aside.
[NLR 1990 SCJ 558]
Recovery of value of crops which were unauthorisedly appropriated
cannot be described as recovery of “tawan” but it would be a simple recovery of
equal value of the crops appropriated---Land under lawful custody of a person

129
[CGL ACT, 1912]
against whom such recovery was ordered, thus, cannot be auctioned by &the
[Sections 35 36]
support and under the cover of Ss. 32, 33, 34 and 28 of the Act as these
provisions have no real application nor even purported application in such a case
[PLD 1990 Supreme Court 736]
Unauthorized use of Government land---Penal action---Penal action, held
could be taken for unauthorized use of Government land. [PLD 1986 Rev. 49(2)]
Person seizing government land and getting it cultivated through tenants--
Provisions of S. 34 applicable. [PLD 1957 W. P. (Rev.) 45]

35. Power to levy a cess for administration of common


village expenses. (1) if in any estate the majority of the tenants
and owners of the estate shall apply for the levy of a cess for
village purposes, the Collector may order the payments of such
a cess from the proprietors, tenants and inhabitants of the
village in such way and at such rates as he holds to be suitable.
44
(2) Any cess leviable in any estate under this section shall be
recoverable as arrears of land revenue.

36. Jurisdiction of Civil Court barred as regards matter


arising under the Act. A Civil Court shall not have jurisdiction
in any matter of which the Collector is empowered by this Act to
dispose and shall not take cognizance of the matter in which
the 45[Provincial Government], 46[Board of Revenue] or Collector
or any other Revenue Officer exercises any power vested in it
or in him by or under this Act.
COMMENTS
Jurisdiction of civil courts—Principles—When action of authorities was
without jurisdiction and void, plaintiff was within his rights to maintain suit before
civil court—Bar of S.36 of CGL Act, 1912 would not apply and civil court could
competently proceed to entertain and adjudicate [2008 SCMR 521].
Admission of the plaintiff that defendants/authorities had not issued any
notice for cancellation of the allotment of land and the plaintiff apprehended that
the allotment would be resumed by the authorities clearly showed that the
plaintiff had filed suit on the basis of assumption, apprehension, presumption,
surmises and conjectures---Apprehension and presumption, how strong might
be, Court could not accept the same to maintain the suit [2008 CLC 1373].
44
Substituted vide Ordinance XXXVI of 1969, dated 7th November, 1969.
45
Substituted for the words “Local Government” by A.O. 1937
46
Inserted by W.P. Act XVI of 1957 as amended by W.P. Ordinance XXXI of 1961

130
[CGL ACT, 1912] [Section 36]

Bar on jurisdiction of civil court---Object and scope---Intention of


Legislature qua such bar seemed to be that officers working under the Act,
should exercise their powers freely and should not be interrupted unnecessarily
while administering colony land according to terms and conditions issued by
competent authority---Ambit of jurisdiction of officers working under the Act was
defined and they could not act beyond their scope of jurisdiction---Section 36 of
Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 did not give unfettered
powers to officers working under the Act---Bar under S. 36 would be available
only where authorities acted within four corners of their jurisdiction, but not
otherwise [2007 SCMR 554].
Grow More Food Scheme---Allotment of land under such scheme and
delivery of possession to plaintiff in March, 1957---Policy decision of Government
to resume land for auctioning, tenancy of which had expired on or before Rabi,
1962---Resumption of plaintiff’s land under such policy---Suit by plaintiff to
declare order of resumption of land to be void---Civil Court decreed suit---
Appellate Court dismissed suit for lack of jurisdiction of Civil Court, which
judgment was affirmed by High Court---Validity---Suit land was not available and
could not be resumed as stipulated period of five years had to be completed after
Rabi, 1962, thus, question of termination of lease would not arise---Supreme
Court emphasized on implementation of such Government instructions regarding
grant of proprietary rights in letter and spirit in present case also---Supreme
Court set aside judgment of High Court and Appellate Court and restored that of
Civil Court [2007 SCMR 1169].
Jurisdiction of Civil Court barred as regards matter arising under the
Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912---Scope---Such exclusive
jurisdictional provisions in any law were subject to judicial proceedings, provided
that the order complained against was either unlawful, without jurisdiction, coram
non judice or passed in the absence of the aggrieved party [2007 YLR 1880]
Bar of jurisdiction of civil court---Applicability---Civil court has no
jurisdiction to entertain matters/disputes over which Revenue hierarchy has
jurisdiction to decide---Where Revenue Authorities act beyond the provisions of
law and without jurisdiction, bar of jurisdiction of civil court contained in S.36
Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab), Act, 1912, does not apply
[2007 YLR 1696].
Plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration with contentions that they were allotted
land on five years Temporary Cultivation Scheme, rights of proprietorship were
conferred upon them, price of land was paid and the conveyance deed was
issued in their favour and that Member, Board of Revenue had no jurisdiction to
cancel deed of proprietorship---Record had established that plaintiffs had failed
to prove the genuineness of allotment---Foundation stone of whole case
therefore was the order of Member, Board of Revenue whereby he annulled the
conveyance deed, which order was validly passed in circumstances---Plaintiffs
who had obtained allotment on basis of fraud, forgery and fabrication were, held,
not entitled to any more right of notice and opportunity of hearing particularly

131
[CGL ACT, 1912] [Section 36]

after the case having been fought in Civil Court with full opportunity to prove the
genuineness of alleged allotment [2006 CLC 1265].
Civil court would not be divested of its jurisdiction when Colony
Authorities, in passing orders challenged before Civil Court, acted without
jurisdiction and exercised powers not vested in them under the Act. Civil Court
would be right in assuming jurisdiction and striking clown orders of Colony
Authorities which were patently perverse, illegal, unlawful, arbitrary and without
competence [NLR 2004 Revenue 83].
Civil Court would ordinarily have jurisdiction to decide, whether or not an
act having been done purportedly in exercise of powers conferred by such Act,
could be validly done there under---Section 36 of the Act did not divest
jurisdiction of Civil Court to decide, what legal effect an order of Revenue Officer
validly passed under the Act would have on the rights of parties [2003 CLC
1922].
Suit challenging the very authority to pass order under Colonization of
Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912---Section 36 of the Act would not be a bar
to such suit [2003 CLC 1922].
Leave to appeal was granted by the supreme court to consider, whether
respondent/ plaintiff could resort to civil court without first exhausting his
remedies before the Authorities in Revenue/ colony hierarchy; whether vires of
order of collector could be assailed in civil suit [2002 SCMR 807].
Directions could be issued by civil court to revenue functionaries to give
effect to any determination made by it in respect of title, right, interest of an
individual in some property [2001 CLC 375].
Suit for declaration to the effect that appellants were grantees & gift
holders and were in possession more than 60 years—Dismissal of suit by trial
court as well as by First Appellate Court—Held: Appellants are in possession of
suit land, have not violated any terms of lease and as such are entitled to grant of
occupancy/proprietary rights subject to fulfillment of such terms and conditions as
law prescribes—Appeals accepted. [PLJ 2001 Lahore 767]
Civil courts shall not interfere or entertain disputes falling within the
hierarchy of the Revenue courts---Jurisdiction of civil court as barred under
provisions of S.36 Colonization of Govt. lands (Punjab) Act, 1912, in any matter
in which the Collector, Additional Commissioner or the Board of Revenue is
empowered to dispose of the matters and those matter stand disposed of within
their lawful authority and exclusive jurisdiction [2000 CLC 159].
Right of the petitioners had already been adjudicated upon and
determined by the civil court of plenary jurisdiction and the same mere affirmed
by the lower Appeal Court were such determination of rights had taken place
before the competent forum and was not agitated further in appeal, such rights
has attained finality and were binding or the litigating parties [2000 CLC 1083].

132
[CGL ACT, 1912] [Section 36]

Grow More Food Scheme was a scheme of permanent nature and was
distinguishable from lease on temporary cultivation basis—regardless of date of
termination of lease, in view of policy laid down by Board of Revenue, allottees of
Grow More Food Scheme were eligible to obtain proprietary rights---Order of
restoring allotment in favour of respondent was not open to exception and could
not have been challenged in Civil Court because to deal with such matter was
the exclusive function of Revenue Authorities under the provisions of
Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912. [2000 SCMR 1083]
Jurisdiction of civil court in colony matter, is barred in any matter in which
Collector, Additional Commissioner or Board of Revenue is empowered to
dispose of that matter and those matters stood disposed of within their lawful
authority and exclusive jurisdiction. [PLJ 1999 Lahore 1784]
Jurisdiction of Civil Courts was ousted by S.36 of Colonization of
Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912, save in circumstances, where person
passing order was not authorised to pass such an order or order passed was
based on fraud or mala fides. [1999 CLC 123]
Bar of jurisdiction of Civil Court contained in S. 36 of the Act was
mandatory and civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain dispute over which
Revenue hierarchy had jurisdiction/ authority to decide—orders passed by
Revenue Officers were not shown to suffer from lack of jurisdiction—Plaintiffs
had remedy to move appeal/ revision before Board of Revenue, which they
admittedly talked to avail—Civil court was not competent to interfere where
Revenue courts/ Authorities had exclusive jurisdiction [1998 SCMR 468].
Provision of S. 36, Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912,
does not give unfettered powers to functionaries under the Act—Civil Court while
exercising supervisory jurisdiction, would have authority to interfere, if orders
were without jurisdiction, malafide, collusive or otherwise not in accordance with
law or based on fraud. Despite clear ouster of jurisdiction of Civil Court in
particular law, there were instances where jurisdiction could be exercised—
Jurisdiction could only be barred, if Authorities concerned had acted within four
corners of their powers and not where acts were ultra vires, without jurisdiction,
void or in excess of their jurisdiction [1998 MLD 413].
S.36 does not oust jurisdiction of Civil Courts with regard to orders of
Colonization Officers which are without jurisdiction, malafide, collusive or
otherwise not in accordance with law or are based on fraud. Intention of S.36 is
that officers working under the Act should exercise their powers freely and should
not be interrupted un-necessarily in administration of Colony land according to
statement of conditions issued by Government---Ouster of jurisdiction of civil
courts by S.36 should not be readily admitted as civil courts have always power
to see if the act of any authority under Act is beyond scope of its powers---View
of civil court that orders illegally passed by Colonization Officer are sacrosanct
and cannot be questioned in view of bar of jurisdiction u/s 36. suffers from
perversity and cannot be accepted. [NLR 1998 Revenue 47]

133
[CGL ACT, 1912] [Section 36]

Bar of jurisdiction of civil Courts contained in S.36 would not apply when
order of Collector passed under Act was based on jurisdictional facts which did
not exist. [1997 UC 316]
Civil Court has jurisdiction where Colonization Authorities have not acted
in accordance with provisions of Act and have failed to comply with
rules/notification issued by provisional Govt. in this behalf [NLR 1996 Revenue
23].
Civil courts, despite provisions of S. 36 Colonization of government lands
(Punjab) Act, 1912, have jurisdiction to entertain any suit if order passed by
Revenue Authorities was bad in law, without lawful authority and malafide [1996
CLC 311].
Assertion that order of cancellation was passed without hearing plaintiffs’
predecessor was raised after 45-years by the legal heirs of such predecessor
who was alive for about 40-years after passing of the order of cancellation but
never raised such objection during his lifetime. Such assertion, therefore, had
little evidentiary value. Right to sue having accrued to plaintiffs’ predecessor with
effect from the order of cancellation forty-five years back, suit should have been
brought within six years under Art, 120, Limitation Act, 1908. Suit brought after
about 45-years of order in questions, was clearly time-barred and liable to
dismissal. [PLD 1994 SC 245]
Civil court would have jurisdiction to examine case to be satisfied whether
executive functionaries had exercised their powers in accordance with law and
had followed the statutory obligations as also the principles of natural justice
[1994 CLC 317].
Exclusion of jurisdiction of Civil Courts when not attracted--- Where Board
of Revenue, while resuming land had exceeded its powers under section 30(2),
Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 and its order was ultra
vires of that section, bar contained in Section 36 of CGLA, 1912 was not
attracted [PLD 1993 Lahore 114].
Civil Court is empowered to review acts of revenue authorities found
beyond periphery of law [1993 CLC 2444].
Revisional proceedings were not barred under s. 10 Civil procedure code,
1908, especially when revision was lodged earlier to civil suit [PLD 1993
Revenue 3].
Orders passed by Colony Authorities within four corners of their
jurisdiction would be immune to interference by civil court in view of bar u/s 36.
[NLR 1991 Revenue 96]
Allottee of land from out of Chiragah—Ceases to be a tenant under Act
after payment of full sale price—Cancellation of allotment after payment of sale
price would be illegal—It can be challenged by way of civil suit. [NLR 1990
Revenue 63]

134
[CGL ACT, 1912] [Section 36]

Allotment of land under Grow More Food Scheme, cancelled and


resumed by the Collector – Held jurisdiction of Civil Courts to challenge
resumption order was barred under S. 36 of the Act [1989 SCMR 1741].
Even if it be accepted that order of Collector was bad in law, forum for its
correction was Commissioner and Board of Revenue---Held further: Without
having recourse to them in first instance, suit was barred. [PLJ 1989 Lahore
370]
Mere fact that a land is situated within limits of Colony area—Would not
oust jurisdiction of Civil Courts to examine legality of orders passed by Colony
Authorities. [NLR 1989 Revenue 153]
Civil suit against appellate order passed u/s 164, Land Revenue Act,
1967 in case where plaintiff fails to invoke his revisional remedy against appellant
order—Not competent. [NLR 1988 Revenue 113]
Question in appeal before the court was whether High Court was right in
holding that the Collector was not competent to examine whether the order of
transfer of Ihata in dispute had been obtained by practicing fraud upon him and
whether the civil courts had the jurisdiction to entertain the suit of respondent---
Respondent neither stating in his plaint that he was not given an opportunity by
Collector of presenting his version or leading evidence in support thereof nor
alleging that order of Collector was based on no evidence---Suit of respondent,
held, was therefore, clearly barred by S. 36 of Act. [1987 SCMR 1620]
Question of jurisdiction, could not be decided without factual inquiry.
[1986 CLC 603]
Petitioner found to be ineligible by Collector after scrutiny – No express
provision of law or any relevant rule found to have been disregarded –
Concurrent finding of three Courts below that suit against resumption of allotment
was barred by S.36 of Act— Held, not open to exception [1984 SCMR 1308].
Sanction to alienate under S. 19 not obtained from competent authority---
Decree of Civil Court, held, could not be executed in view of provisions of S. 19
read with Ss. 18 & 36. [PLD 1983 Rev. 53]
Ouster of jurisdiction---Civil Court---Ouster of jurisdiction not to be
presumed or readily admitted despite a clear ouster in a particular law, there are
situations in which jurisdiction can be exercised. Jurisdiction can only be ousted,
if found that order passed by statutory functionary lay within ambit of its power
and neither based on fraud nor mala fides. [PLD 1983 Lahore 294]
Civil Courts have jurisdiction only when orders passed by authorities
under Act not within jurisdiction. [1982 CLC 55]
Statements and Conditions of Scheme promulgated by Government
under that law in grab putting an unwarranted interpretation or construction of
same, they would acting in excess of their power and authority---Civil Court will
always exercise jurisdiction to strike their order which proceed on unwarranted

135
[CGL ACT, 1912] [Section 36]

interpretation of Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912)


[NLR 1982 Revenue SC 129]
Findings by Revenue Authorities about disentitlement of an aspirant for
grant of lease of state land—Not open to corrective processes of civil courts.
[NLR 1981 Revenue 131]
Civil Courts entitled to see whether authority acted in compliance with law
—Objection about bar of jurisdiction—Not sustained. [NLR 1980 Rev Kar. 3]
Civil Courts entitled to see whether authority acted in compliance with
law. [1980 CLC 662, 1980 SCMR 261]
Stay order issued by a civil court restraining Board of Revenue from
examining correctness or otherwise of an order passed by Collector---Held, stay
order is a coram-non-judice order and would be no bar to looking into vires by
Board of Revenue of Collector’s order in accordance with law and procedure
[NLR 1979 Rev. 63].
Cancellation of allotment – Jurisdiction of civil courts ousted in matters
falling within the competence of collector [1978 SCMR 1620].
Civil Courts empowered to decide whether or not act purporting to have
been done under Colonization Act could be validly done under Act—S. 36 does
not divest civil courts of jurisdiction to adjudicate what legal effect order of a
Revenue Officer validly passed under Colonization Act could have on rights of
parties before it. [NLR 1978 Revenue 219]
Section 36 applicable only where authorities concerned acted within
power and four corners of their jurisdiction and not where their acts are ultra vires
or without jurisdiction or void, or in excess of their jurisdiction. [PLD 1978 Lahore
679]
Court cannot confer any grant or right which is conferred by the Act of
functionaries under the Act. [PLJ 1978 Lahore 475]
Any grant or right conferred by Act or confer able by functionaries under
Act – Cannot be conferred by court— Jurisdiction of civil court, held, barred in
such matters under S. 36 [PLJ 1978 Lahore 1228].
Respondent acquiring proprietary rights in land and conveyance deed
executed---Transaction having been completed making respondent full owner of
allotted land---Civil court alone, held, could interfere in matter and revision
petition before Board of Revenue not competent. [PLD 1976 (Rev.) 65]
Party should not rush to Civil court without first exhausting remedy before
appellate and revisional authority under Act [PLD 1966 (W.P.) Lahore 342].
Civil Court has no jurisdiction to quest consent of Collector---Civil court
can decide whether land is ancestral or not. [PLD 1958 (W.P.) Lahore 340]
Jurisdiction---Civil court can decide whether act was done validly under
the Act of what is the legal effect of an order validly passed under the Act. [PLD
1954 Lahore 253]

136
[CGL ACT, 1912] [Sections 37 & 38]

37. Public servants indemnified for Acts done under this


Act. No suit shall lie against any public servant for anything
done by him in good faith under this Act.

38. Legalization of orders passed previous to the Act. (1)


Any act hitherto done or order passed by the 47[Provincial
Government] or by an officer holding the post of Colonization
Officer, Assistant Colonization Officer, or Settlement
Commissioner, or exercising the powers of an Assistant
Collector or of a Revenue Officer of higher class within any
area to which the Government Tenants (Punjab) Act, 1893, has
been applied or to which this Act may hereafter be applied,
which is not contrary to the provisions of this Act, shall be
deemed to have been done or passed under this Act.
(2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of
the foregoing sub section, no right of occupancy or right of
ownership and no condition applicable there shall be
invalidated by reason of: -
1. the right having been granted before the particulars
regarding it have been entered in a prescribed
register; or
2. the prescribed register not having been signed by
the tenant; or
3. the prescribed statement of conditions having been
affixed to the prescribed register instead of being
prefixed thereto:
Provided that if the register has not been signed by the
tenants, the statement of conditions applicable to the tenancy
shall be deemed to be that which was in force for tenancies of
the same description at the time when the land was allotted.

47
Substituted for the words “Local Government” by A.O. 1937

137
[CGL ACT, 1912] [Schedules]

SCHEDULE-I
LIST OF EXCEPTED TENANCIES REFERRED TO IN SECTION 4.
A. In the Lower Chenab Colony the tenancies of tenants holding on
the conditions applicable to: -
(1) Camel-owning tenants.
(2) Camel-owning Chaudhries.
(3) Village headmen, ordinary.
(4) Village headmen, mule-breeding.
(5) Tree-planting tenants.
(6) Village menials.
B. In the Lower Jhelum Colony the tenancy of tenants holding on the
conditions applicable to: -
(1) Horse-breeding tenants.
(2) Horse-breeding nazrana paying tenants.
(3) Village headmen.
(4) Tree-planting tenants.
(5) Village menials.
C. In the Lower Sohag Para Colony the tenancies of tenants holding
on the conditions applicable to Village headmen.
SCHEDULE II
(Referred to in section 30)
Conditions applicable to grantees who acquire proprietary rights.
1. Exceptions of channels rights to minerals, etc. 48[Government] does
not grant to the grantee but hereby absolutely excepts and reserves to itself out
of and in respect of the said lands (1) all grounds situate in the said lands or any
part thereof already marked out, excavated or otherwise utilized for the
distributing channels, and (2) all existing rights to and over al mines and
minerals, coals, gold washings, earth-oil and quarries in or under the said lands
or any part thereof, together with all easements heretofore enjoyed by
48
[Government] in respect of the said lands or any part thereof. And it likewise
excepts and reserves the right of the public to use existing thoroughfares
traversing the said lands or any part thereof including a width of 1 ½ Kadams on
either side of survey base line, and also any lines of road which, though not yet
[Schedule-II]
made, have been marked out upon the ground.
2. Power of the Government entry to search for minerals, etc. The
grantee shall at all times permit the 49[servant of the State] to enter and do all
48
Substituted for the words “The Crown”, by West Pakistan Laws (Adaptation) Order, 1964
49
Substituted for the words “Officer of the Crown”, by West Pakistan Laws (Adaptation) Order, 1964

138
[CGL ACT, 1912]
acts and things that may be necessary and expedient for the purpose of
searching for working, getting, or carrying away any such mines and minerals,
coals, gold-washings, earth oil, and quarries, and for the full enjoyment of the
ground and of the rights hereinbefore reserved to 50[Government] to and over all
mines and minerals, coals, gold-washings, earth-oil, quarries and easements in
or under the said lands and all parts thereof.
3. Compensation for damage by entry. The 50[Government] agrees to pay
the grantees compensation for all damage occasioned by the exercise of the
rights reserved to itself in clauses-1 and 2. Such compensation shall be
assessed by the Collector, and if the grantee is not satisfied with the finding of
the Collector, he may appeal to the 51[Executive District Officer (Revenue)].
4. Demarcation of boundaries. The grantee shall duly comply with such
directions as the Collector shall from time to time issue requiring him to construct
boundary marks on the limits of the said lands or any part thereof, and shall keep
them when erected in good repair to the satisfaction of the Collector.
5. In the event of any dispute arising between the 52[Provincial Government]
and the grantee as to the property and rights hereby reserved to 50[Government],
or as to any matter in any way relating thereto, or as to any of the condition of the
grant, or as to any matter or thing anywise connected therewith, the said dispute
shall be referred for the opinion of the 51Executive District Officer (Revenue)
whose decision shall be final and conclusive between the 52[Provincial
Government] and the grantee.

50
Substituted for the words “The Crown”, by West Pakistan Laws (Adaptation) Order, 1964
51
Substituted for the words “Commissioner” by the CGL (Punjab Amendment) Ord. No.XXXII of 2001.
52
Substituted for the words “The Crown”, by West Pakistan Laws (Adaptation) Order, 1964

139