Law: Land Revenue Act, 1967 (XVII of 1967)

Section: 164

Law: Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)

Section: 113,45

Law: Oath Act, 1873

Section: 5

Law: Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908

Section: 115

Summary of the Judgment

This judgment resolves two connected writ petitions regarding the allotment of land under the Horse Breeding Scheme in Chak No. 84/5-L, Tehsil and District Sahiwal.

Background

• Haji Muhammad Ali was the original allottee of 192 Kanals 18 Marlas under the scheme. He passed away on 20.02.2007.
• The land was allotted to the petitioner (his grandson).
• Respondent No. 5 (his son) challenged the allotment before the Commissioner, Sahiwal Division, claiming a rival right but his appeal was dismissed on 24.06.2016.
• He then filed a revision before the Board of Revenue, which resulted in the impugned order dated 27.08.2018, canceling the allotment and directing that the land be allotted to a new candidate.

Key Legal Points Raised

• The Member (Judicial-VII), Board of Revenue Punjab, canceled the allotment based on statements made before him, which he treated as admissions that a private partition had taken place.
• The petitioner challenged the decision, arguing that:
  • The statements were not made under oath, making them legally inadmissible.
  • The Member failed to consider legal provisions, including:
    • Letter No. 868-C Lahore (19.02.1952) (Allotment conditions).
    • Colonization of Government Land Act, 1912.
  • The Collector’s allotment and Additional Commissioner’s decision should be upheld.

Court’s Analysis & Decision

• The court held that Section 164 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967 gives the Board of Revenue wide revisional powers, but these must be exercised lawfully.
• Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 (QSO) differentiates between judicial admissions (binding) and evidentiary admissions (retractable). Since the statements were not under oath, they had no legal value.
• Failure to administer oath under Section 5 of the Oaths Act, 1873 makes the statements inadmissible.
• The impugned order was unreasonable and violated the Wednesbury principle (which applies when a decision is so irrational that no reasonable authority would have made it).

Final Decision

• The impugned order dated 27.08.2018 is set aside.
• The case is remanded to the Board of Revenue for fresh adjudication in accordance with legal principles.
• As W.P. No. 18984 of 2019 was also based on the same order, it is disposed of on the same terms.

Conclusion

• The petition is allowed, and the Board of Revenue must decide the case afresh.
• The court ruled that statements made without oath are not legally binding, and decisions must be based on evidence and legal provisions rather than mere oral statements.

ORDER

This single judgment shall decide the captioned petition and connected W.P.No.18984 of 2019, as in both petitions’ order is passed the learned Member (Judicial-VII), Board of Revenue Punjab, Camp at Sahiwal dated 27.08.2018 with regard to allotment of a lot of the Horse Breading Scheme.
2.    One Haji Muhammad Ali was an allottee of a Lot, of the Horse Breeding Scheme, measuring 192 Kanals 18 Marlas comprising Square No. 68 & 69 situated in Chak No. 84/5-L Tehsil and District Sahiwal died on 20.02.2007. The land was eventually allotted to the present petitioner grandson of Haji Muhammad Ali. Respondent No.5 in the instant petition and petitioner of the connected petition impugned the decision of allotment before the Commissioner Sahiwal Division and raised a rival claim of allotment being son of the of the deceased allotee inter alia other grounds but failed as appeal was dismissed through order dated 24.06.2016. Being aggrieved of the order of allotment and appellate order, Respondent No. 5 preferred a revision before Board of Revenue which was decided through impugned order dated 27.08.2018. Respondent No. 1 through the impugned order non- suited both contesting candidates as parties admitted before him, purportedly, that they have privately partitioned the subject matter lot and as tenant cannot partition the land. This fact alone was considered an ample ground to cancel the lot and he remanded the matter to the forum below to allot subject matter lot to a new candidate.
3.    Learned counsel of the petitioner averred while passing impugned order that the learned Member has not attended to: conditions for allotment as contained in letter No.868-C Lahore dated the 19th February, 1952; policy notes issued from time to time or any provision of the Colonization of Government Land Act, 1912, which is law on the subject. He contended neither admission was made nor that can be taken seriously; and petitioner’s allotment was made by Collector and appeal against allotment was rejected by the Additional Commissioner; petitioner is in exclusive possession of tenancy as per the Daily Dairy Report No. 236 dated 30.03.2016 and statement so recorded by the Learned Member runs contrary to official record and has no value as admission against record is no admission. Petitioner has ability and experience to manage tenancy and prayed that impugned order be set aside and order passed by the Collector and the Additional Commissioner be restored.
4.    Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 5(Petitioner of the connected Writ Petition No. 18489/2019) argued that petitioner is ineligible and departmental authorities twice recommended his client as suitable candidate for allotment of the Lot but the Collector has wrongfully allotted the same to the petitioner Muhammad Ameer. He also prayed for setting aside the order passed by the Additional Commissioner and the Member Board of Revenue.
5.    The learned law officer while justifying the impugned order passed by the Member Board of Revenue argued that the order has been passed in exercise of the Revisional jurisdiction and the

Learned Member was justified to draw inference from the statement made before him.