IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE EJAZ AFZAL KHAN 
MR. JUSTICE DOST MUHAMMAD KHAN 
MR. JUSTICE FAISAL ARAB 
 
 
CIVIL PETITION NO. 928-L OF 2015 
(On 
appeal 
against 
the 
judgment 
dated 
19.02.2015 passed by the Lahore High Court, 
Lahore in Writ Petition No. 193/2013) 
 
Jan Muhammad 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
… Petitioner 
VERSUS 
The Member (Colony) etc 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     …Respondents 
 
 
For the Petitioner:  
Mr. Akhtar Masood Khan, ASC 
 
 
 
 
Mr. M. Ozair Chughtai, AOR (Absent) 
 
 
 
 
For Respondents (1-2): Mr. Razzaq A. Mirza, Addl. A.G. 
 
For the Respondent (3): Mr. M.A. Ghaffar ul Haq, ASC 
 
Mr. 
Muhammad 
Anwar 
Khan, 
AOR 
(Absent) 
 
Date of Hearing:  
20.10.2016. 
 
 
JUDGMENT 
 
 
 
 
FAISAL ARAB, J.- On 23.11.1956, the Board of 
Revenue of the then West Pakistan launched a Scheme described 
as ‘Grow More Food’. Under the said scheme, the barren state land 
was to be leased out in compact blocks of not exceeding 12 ½ 
acres for growing food grains. Temporary leases were initially 
granted for a period of three years, which period was subsequently 
enhanced to five years. After expiry of five years, leases were 
extended for another one year. It was one of the terms and 
conditions of the lease that in case the lessee fails to cultivate the 
leased land or any part thereof, the lease shall terminate. 
Civil Petition No. 928-L/2015 
2
Thereafter, 
vide 
notification 
No. 
5449-58/7272-C(G) 
dated 
29.10.1958 this condition was relaxed and it was provided that at-
least 50% area must be brought under cultivation to avoid 
termination of the lease.  
 
2. 
 
Vide notification dated 22.10.1962 bearing No. 4826-
62/4419-S (G) III, the state land leased out under ‘Grow More Food 
Scheme’ was to be sold by private treaty to the lessees to the extent 
of 12 ½ acres with the maximum upper limit of 13 acres to those 
lessees only who are self cultivators and whose term of temporary 
lease had expired in Rabi 1962 or on any other period thereafter, 
except for such lands, which fall within certain radius of a town or 
municipality limits.  
 
3. 
 
Vide notification dated 01.06.1970 bearing No. 5086-
69/1683-CL III, it was made clear that where a lessee cannot be 
granted proprietary rights on account of the land being in the 
proximity of a municipality or town or within one mile of a railway 
station, though the lessees were otherwise entitled to the grant of 
proprietary rights, they would be offered alternative State land 
elsewhere. Such lessees were not to be dispossessed from their 
lands until the alternate land is provided to them and in case they 
have already been dispossessed and their lands have been utilized 
by the government for some permanent scheme, they would also be 
entitled for the alternate land.  
 
4. 
 
On 26.04.1971 another notification bearing No. 1488-
71/1217-CL-III was issued which provided that all allottees under 
the ‘Grow More Food Scheme’ shall be granted proprietary rights, 
Civil Petition No. 928-L/2015 
3
provided they have fulfilled the terms and conditions on which 
leases were granted and those who had fulfilled the terms and 
conditions but have been evicted by the Government, their 
possession shall be restored and in cases leases of such lands have 
been subsequently granted to other persons, the same shall stand 
automatically cancelled. It was further provided that in case such 
lands have already been allotted by the government for any 
permanent scheme and restoration of possession to the allottees 
has become impossible, then, such allottees were to be 
accommodated in some alternate area with the same rights as they 
would have exercised in the lands allotted to them. 
  
5. 
 
In the present case, the petitioner was allotted land 
measuring 96 kanals 18 marlas in Chak No. 556/GB Tehsil 
Samundari, District Faisalabad on temporary lease bases in 1957 
under the Grow More Food Scheme. The lease came to an end after 
the expiry of lease period in Rabi 1962 and the possession reverted 
back to the State. After termination of lease way back in 1962, the 
petitioner in the year 1984 applied for grant of alternate land in 
lieu of the land that was allotted to him in 1957 under the ‘Grow 
More Food Scheme’ to the Assistant Commissioner/Collector 
Samundari, who vide his order dated 02.12.1984 declared the 
petitioner eligible under Notification No.1488-71/1217-CL-III dated 
26.04.1971 for such allotment. Hence vide order dated 21.07.1986 
the petitioner’s application for alternate land was allowed and he 
was granted proprietary rights in another piece of land measuring 
52 kanals 9 marlas in Chak No. 485/GB, Tehsil Samundari, 
District Faisalabad. At this stage, the respondent No. 3 came 
forward and filed an application before Member (Colonies) Board of 
Civil Petition No. 928-L/2015 
4
Revenue and District Officer (Revenue), Faisalabad seeking 
cancellation of allotment order issued in favour of the petitioner by 
taking the plea that the land which was originally allotted to the 
petitioner in 1957 was surrendered by him and no longer remained 
under his cultivation. Thereafter, the same was leased out to him 
for a period of five years under the ‘Grow More Food Scheme’ from 
Khareef 1973 to Rabi 1978, which lease was extended upto 1983, 
therefore, respondent No.3 was eligible for the grant of proprietary 
rights and not the petitioner. The application moved on behalf of 
respondent No.3 was however dismissed vide order dated 
04.11.2004. The respondent No.3 then filed a review petition before 
the revenue authority. During the pendency of the said petition, he 
filed another application under Section 30(2) of the Colonization of 
Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 for cancellation of allotment 
of alternate land that was granted in favour of the petitioner. The 
Member Board of Revenue vide order dated 19.09.2012 declared 
the 
order 
dated 
21.07.1986 
passed 
by 
the 
Assistant 
Commissioner/Collector, Faisalabad to be ultra vires and cancelled 
the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner on the ground 
that he obtained allotment order of alternate land by committing 
fraud and misrepresentation and restored the allotment in favour 
of respondent No. 3. The petitioner challenged the said order before 
the Lahore High Court in Writ Petition No. 193/2013, which was 
dismissed vide impugned judgment. Hence this petition. 
 
6. 
 
All allottees under the ‘Grow More Food Scheme’ were 
to be conferred proprietary rights, provided that they have fulfilled 
the terms and conditions on which temporary leases were granted. 
Those who had fulfilled the terms and conditions but had been 
Civil Petition No. 928-L/2015 
5
evicted by the government on the expiry of temporary leases, their 
possession was to be restored and the leases that had been 
subsequently granted to other persons were to be automatically 
cancelled. So in terms of Notifications dated 1.6.1970 bearing No 
5086-69/1683-CL III and dated 26.04.1971 bearing No. 1488-
71/1217-CL-III alternate land was to be given only where the 
terms and conditions on which temporary leases were granted 
have been fulfilled by the lessee but (i) the allotted lands were 
situated either within the proximity of a municipality or a town or 
where it was within one mile of a railway station or (ii) for some 
reason the allottees were dispossessed by the government and 
their lands were utilized for some permanent scheme. All such 
allottees in terms of the above referred two notifications of 1970 & 
1971 were to be accommodated in some alternate area with the 
same rights as they would have exercised in the lands originally 
allotted to them. It is an admitted position that the petitioner was 
granted lease in 1957, which lease expired in Rabi 1962 and on 
expiry of the lease the land reverted back to the State. He remained 
no more in its cultivation. Thereafter from time to time the same 
was leased out to others and finally it was leased out to respondent 
No.3 who held the lease from the years 1973 to 1983. There is no 
material on record to show he falls within the situations as 
envisaged by the above referred notifications of 1970 and 1971.  
 
7. 
 
The Additional Advocate General submitted that the 
petitioner was granted lease in 1957, which lease expired in Rabi 
1962 and it is an admitted position that upon expiry of the lease 
the land reverted back to the State therefore he was not entitled for 
alternate land under Notification dated 26.04.1971 bearing No. 
Civil Petition No. 928-L/2015 
6
1488-71/1217-CL-III. He also pointed out that insofar as the claim 
of respondent No.3 is concerned, he at the relevant time was a 
teacher in Government school and was not eligible for grant of 
temporary lease, he too cannot claim any right under Notification 
dated 26.04.1971 bearing No. 1488-71/1217-CL-III, therefore, 
allotments were rightly cancelled as the same were obtained by 
playing fraud and misrepresentation. This aspect was also not 
examined by the Board of Revenue. 
 
8. 
 
We have noted that in terms of Notifications dated 
1.6.1970 bearing No 5086-69/1683-CL-III and dated 26.04.1971 
bearing No. 1488-71/1217-CL-III alternate land was to be given 
only where the terms and conditions on which temporary leases 
were granted have been fulfilled by the lessee but (i) the allotted 
lands were situated either within the proximity of a municipality or 
a town or where it was within one mile of a railway station or (ii) for 
some reason the allottees were dispossessed by the government 
and their lands were utilized for some permanent scheme. Only 
such allottees, in terms of the above referred two notifications of 
1970 & 1971, were to be accommodated in alternate areas with the 
same rights as they would have exercised in the lands originally 
allotted to them. As fora below have not examined this case from 
the perspective of the applicability of the above-referred two 
notifications, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned 
judgment passed by the High Court and remand the case back to 
the Board of Revenue, which shall decide whether the petitioner or 
the respondent No.3 was entitled to the grant of alternate land in 
terms of the notifications discussed above or the land rightly 
reverted back to the State. 
Civil Petition No. 928-L/2015 
7
 
9. 
 
Vide short order dated 20.10.2016, we converted this 
petition into appeal, allowed it and remanded the case back to the 
Board of Revenue and these are the reasons for the same. 
 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
JUDGE 
JUDGE 
Islamabad, the 
20th of October, 2016 
Approved For Reporting 
Khurram 
 
