Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, J - Lahore High Court

Stereo. H C J D A 38.
Judgment Sheet
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT LAHORE
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Ch. Muhammad Nazir
Cheema
Case No: W.P. 25686/2011
Versus Mujahid Sher Dil, DCO, etc.
JUDGMENT
Date of hearing 28.11.2011
Petitioner by Mr. Rizwan Mushtaq, Advocate
Respondents
by:
Syed Nayyar Abbas Rizvi, Assistant
Advocate General, Punjab.
Mr. Ahmad Zaman Khan, Advocate for
respondent No.4.
Mr. Waseem Mukhtar, Member (Colonies),
Board of Revenue, Punjab.
Sheraz Manzoor, Assistant Commissioner,
Sialkot.
Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, J:- Factual version of the case
as narrated by the petitioner is that the petitioner is owner in
possession of land measuring 4-Kanals 10-Marlas (“Property”)
in the urban limits of Tehsil Sialkot whereupon the petitioner
has raised/constructed a Cinema which is functioning in the
name and style of “Mehfil Cinema.” As a matter of
background, it is submitted that the Property was subject matter
of a partnership between the petitioner and predecessor-in-
interest of respondent No.4. Thereafter, the said partnership
was dissolved and after prolonged litigation up to the level of

W.P. No.25686/2011 2
august Supreme Court of Pakistan it was finally settled that the
petitioner is owner of the Property.
2. Grievance raised in this petition is that the District
Coordination Officer/Chairman District Task Force, Sialkot
(respondent No.1) vide impugned order dated 03.11.2011
dispossessed the petitioner from the Property and handed over the
possession of the same to respondent No.4.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends as follows:
(a) That the DCO or the District Task Force does not
enjoy any power under the Rules of Business or the
Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912 to
dispossess the petitioner from private land.
(b) The guidelines/ departmental instructions
(notifications) relied upon by the respondents cannot
touch upon matters relating to private parties or
provide for alternate dispute resolution through
arbitration between private parties pertaining to
private property.
(c) That at any rate the departmental instructions/
guidelines are invalid as they do not pass the test of
conforming to the basic principles of natural justice as
any action taken on the said guidelines may result in

W.P. No.25686/2011 3
an unlawful identification of a person as an illegal
occupant without there being any provision of a fair
opportunity of hearing which, is a sine qua non for
passing an order adversely affecting the rights being
enjoyed by a party. Reliance is placed upon cases
reported as Messrs Shaheen Cotton Mills, Lahore and
another v. Federation of Pakistan, Ministry of
Commerce through Secretary and another (PLD 2011
Lahore 120), Chief Justice of Pakistan Iftikhar
Muhammad Chaudhry v. President of Pakistan
through Secretary and others (PLD 2010 SC 61) and
Federation of Pakistan and another v. Irfan Tariq and
others (2009 SCMR 1018).
(d) That the Land Revenue Act, 1967 has no application
to the controversy involved as the Land Revenue Act
is a fiscal statute made for maintaining revenue
record, assessment and collection of land revenue
thereupon and for resolution of disputes between
agricultural landlords and tenants thereon through the
Revenue Courts. Furthermore, the revenue record is
not a record of title when compared with declarations
made by the superior courts of competent jurisdiction.

W.P. No.25686/2011 4
(e) That the action taken by the official respondents is a
glaring example of violation of the principle of good
governance enunciated by this Court , as well as, the
Hon’ble Apex Court. Reliance is placed on Human
Rights Case titled Tariq Aziz-ud-Din and others
(2010 SCMR 1301), Ashfaq Hussain v. Government
of the Punjab and others (2011 PLC (C.S.) 799),
Iman Hussain v. Water and Power Development
Authority through Chairman WAPDA and 4 others
(PLD 2010 Lahore 546) and Muhammad Aslam v.
Vice-Chairman and others (2010 PLC (C.S.) 266).
(f) That it is trite law that nobody can be prejudiced by
wrongful act of a public authority, therefore, public
authorities are liable to restore to the persons so
prejudiced to the same position, which existed before
the illegality was committed. Reliance is placed on
Abdul Haq and 2 others v. The Resident Magistrate,
Uch Sharif, Tehsil Ahmedpur East, District
Bahawalpur and 6 others (PLD 2000 Lahore 101).
4. The District Coordination Officer (DCO), Sialkot also acting
as Chairman District Task Force, Sialkot appeared, in person,
before this court on 21.11.2011 and submitted that he had passed
the impugned order under notification dated 30.12.2009

W.P. No.25686/2011 5
(“Notification-I”) issued by the Colonies Department, Board of
Revenue, Punjab. Under the said notification, District Committees
have been constituted against Qabza Groups/Illegal Land
Grabbers. Relevant extracts of the terms of reference of
Notification-I are:
iv. To examine the issue of massive public complaints against
the new privately owned and publicized housing societies
and other lands under unauthorized occupation and to
identify measures to provide relief to public through the
revenue department in a tangible, manner. The cases of
widows and overseas Pakistanis will be given top priority.
Establishment of Complaint Redressal Cell in the office of
District Coordination Officer under the chair of a “Focal
Person.” Wide publicity to be given about the Complaint
Redressal Cell;
v. Identification of Qabza Groups, and of revenue
officers/officials and other Government officials who have
been allegedly involved in land grabbing in collusion with
Qabza Groups and to recommend departmental and
criminal action against them;
vi. To examine the issue of massive public complaints against
the new privately owned and publicized housing societies.
To develop a phased strategy to deal with the menace of
Qabza groups with regard to state owned and private
properties separately, and to identify measures to provide
relief to public through the revenue department in a
tangible manner. (emphasis supplied)
5. District Coordination Officer failed to show under what law
the Board of Revenue, Punjab, had issued Notification-I. Member
(Colonies), Board of Revenue, Punjab was also summoned who
appeared in the Court today and submitted that notification dated
30.12.2009 has been followed by another notification dated
18.05.2011 (“Notification-II”) issued by the Board of Revenue,

W.P. No.25686/2011 6
Punjab and after placing it on the record referred to one of the
terms of reference of the said notification which states as follows:-
On receipt of a private complaint, the Committee shall
immediately proceed to redress the grievances and resolve the
issue under available legal frame work and if required, resort to
alternate dispute resolution mechanism through arbitration.
6. Member (Colonies) submitted that both these notifications
were in the nature of guidelines to facilitate the working of the
District Committees and the purpose was to identify Qabza Groups
in case of private lands and after identification of the same to avail
the remedy available under the existing legal framework. Member
(Colonies) submitted the DCO or Chairman District Task Force
cannot directly take action against a citizen under the said
Notification and did not support the impugned order passed by
DCO/Chairman District Task Force. Learned Law Officer also
supports the contention of the Member (Colonies), Board of
Revenue, Punjab.
7. I have heard the arguments of the counsel and perused the
record including Notification-II placed before me by Member
(Colonies).
8. In order to examine the legality of the impugned Order dated
3-11-2011 passed by Respondent no.1, the legality of the
abovementioned notifications issued by the Board of Revenue,
Punjab, which allegedly empowered the DCO to pass the

W.P. No.25686/2011 7
impugned order, also require to be examined. In order to judicially
review the impugned order and the notifications, I do not require to
comment on the veracity of the claim made by respondent no.4,
therefore, without touching the merits of the private dispute
between the petitioner and Respondent no.4, I venture to discuss
and analyze the scope and legality of the impugned order and its
supporting notifications.
9. The questions that need to be answered in this case are:
a. Whether, under the law, the Board of Revenue,
Punjab was authorized to issue Notifications dated 30-
12-2009) (“Notification-I”) and 18-5-2011
(“Notification-II”) relating to private land and private
parties? and
b. Whether the District Coordination Officer/Chairman
District Task Force, Sialkot could dispossess or
deprive a person from his private property through an
executive order under Notification-I?
10. Notification-I dated 30-12-2009 1 titled as:
“CONSTITUTION OF COMMITTEES AGAINST QABZA
GROUPS/ILLEGAL LAND GRABBERS.” has been issued by the
Colonies Department of the Board of Revenue, Punjab whereby
1 No. 4606-2009/2996-CLI

W.P. No.25686/2011 8
various Committees have been constituted against Qabza
Groups/Illegal Land Grabbers. The Provincial Committee, being
the apex committee under the said notification is to provide policy
guidelines and steer initiative against the Qabza Groups, monitor
the performance of other committees and provide support at
provincial level in combating Qabza Groups/illegal land grabbers
and finally to examine the recommendations/ proposal on legal
reforms and finalize these for implementation. Under this
notification, the District Committee is headed by DCO (Chairman)
and, inter alia, comprises Chief City Police Officer (CCPO) or
District Police Officer, EDO (Revenue), DO (Revenue), etc. The
relevant Terms of Reference of the District Committee are as
follows:
ii. To examine the issue of massive public complaints against
the new privately owned and publicized housing societies
and other lands under unauthorized occupation and to
identify measures to provide relief to public through the
revenue department in a tangible, manner. The cases of
widows and overseas Pakistanis will be given top priority.
Establishment of Complaint Redressal Cell in the office
of Commissioner under the chair of “Focal Person”. Wide
publicity to be given about the Complaint Redressal Cell;
iii. Prepare a list of all pending cases of illegal/unauthorized
occupation of Government land within the Divisions and
carve out action plan to rectify the situation. As regards
private land, a separate list will be maintained upon the
complaints received;
iv. Identification of Qabza groups, and of revenue
officers/officials and other Government officials who have
been allegedly involved in land grabbing in collusion with
Qabza groups and to recommend departmental and criminal
action against them. The Divisional Commissioners, in
consultation with RPOs, will identify the gangs involved.
Detention of chronic cases will be moved to the Home
Department.

W.P. No.25686/2011 9
11. Member (Colonies), who appeared in person, submitted that
latest position in the matter is governed by Notification-II 2 (it is
pointed out that Notification-II does not superseded Notification-I).
The said notification titled ACTION AGAINST QABZA
GROUPS/MAFIA provides for constitution of Sub- Committees in
the Districts “to deal with privately owned land grabbing issues.”
The Terms of Reference, inter-alia, of the said Sub Committee are:
iii. On receipt of a private complaint, the Committee
shall immediately proceed to redress the
grievances and resolve the issue under available
legal frame work and if required, resort to alternate
dispute resolution mechanism through arbitration.
12. Member (Colonies) further submitted that both the
notifications are mere guidelines and action can only be taken
against Land Grabbers or Qabza groups in accordance with law
under the prevalent legal framework or the committees could
additionally resort to alternate dispute resolution through
arbitration. Member (Colonies), as well as, the Learned Law
officer did not defend the impugned order dated 3-11-2011 passed
by Respondent no.1 and submitted that the matter ought to have
been dealt with in accordance with the legal framework available
i.e., either by filing a suit for possession or a complaint under the
Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. From the above it is clear that the
2 No. 75-D-2011/786-CLI

W.P. No.25686/2011 10
impugned order of Respondent no.4 traverses and violates the
power vested under the Notifications.
13. Proceeding further, it is important to analyze whether the
above notifications could have been lawfully issued by the Board
of Revenue, Government of the Punjab. Under Notification-I, inter
alia, District Committees have been set up to deal with the Land
Grabbers and Qabza Groups over Private Lands and to “provide
relief to public through the revenue department in a tangible
manner” and under Notification-II it is stated that the Committees
shall “resolve the issue under available legal framework” or “resort
to alternate dispute resolution mechanism through arbitration.”
Both the notifications, issued by Secretary (Colonies), Board of
Revenue, Punjab, fail to refer to the governing law under which
they have been issued. Respondent no.1 and the learned Law
officer also failed to show under what law the said notifications
have been issued. Counsel for the private respondent, however,
submitted that the said notifications have been issued under Rule
67-B of the Land Revenue Rules, 1968.
14. Perusal of Board of Revenue Act, 1957, Land Revenue Act,
1967, Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 and
Rules of Business of the Provincial Government show that Board
of Revenue is not empowered to deal with disputes relating to
Qabza Groups/Land Grabbers over private land or to resolve

W.P. No.25686/2011 11
disputes between private parties arising out of private land through
arbitration. At the most, section 32 of the Colonization of
Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 provides that 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, forthwith re-enter upon the land and resume possession of it
and take of all crops, trees and buildings on behalf of the
government without compensation. Rule 67-B of the Land
Revenue Rules, 1968 read with sections 117 and 122 of the Land
Revenue Act, 1967, provide that a land owner can be evicted if
found in wrongful possession of a land as a result of demarcation
proceedings taken under section 117 of the Land Revenue Act,
1967. The Collector hearing the said application moved under
section 122 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967 may direct fresh
demarcation proceedings or order eviction of the landowner who is
in wrongful possession of the land. This power is qualified by the
proviso to sub-rule 5 of Rule 67-B which provides that where
proceedings involve substantial question of title or an intricate
question of law, the collector shall refer the matter to the civil
court.
15. From the above it is clear that Notifications-I and II have no
legal cover to justify their existence, to the extent of the private
dispute arising from private land. These notifications cannot even

W.P. No.25686/2011 12
pass as guidelines or administrative instructions as the very subject
matter of the said notifications (to the extent of private land and
private disputes) is ultra vires the laws governing the working of
the Board of Revenue. Resultantly, impugned order dated 3-11-
2011 passed by DCO and Notifications-I and II issued by the
Board of Revenue, Punjab have no legal sanction and are therefore
declared to be without lawful authority.
16. Our constitutional democracy rests on the fundamental
principle of RULE OF LAW. Article 4 of the Constitution is its
principal manifestation. The said article provides that “to enjoy the
protection of law and to be treated in accordance with law is the
inalienable right of every citizen.” This means that every citizen
and every person for the time being in Pakistan enjoys the
protection of laws of the land. These laws and the Constitution are
like a protective shield guarding the life, liberty, reputation, body
and property of the persons within Pakistan. Any action adverse to
the rights of a person, must, therefore, be through the mechanism
or in accordance with the very laws which protect the said persons.
To be treated in accordance with law is to proceed against a person
strictly under the law which provides protection to the person in
the first place. Case in point, in the instant matter, is the Specific
Relief Act, 1877 or the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. Unless a

W.P. No.25686/2011 13
suit or a complaint is filed under these laws, no person can be
dispossessed from private property.
17. The right to fair trial under article 10A further buttresses
article 4. The right to fair trial provides for the determination of
civil rights and obligations of a person through a fair trial and due
process. Dispossession of the person from property without
recourse to the available law or in accordance with law also
offends article 10A and deprives the petitioner of his right to fair
trial and due process. Article 23 of the Constitution guarantees the
petitioner the right to hold and enjoy his property subject to
reasonable restrictions imposed by law. The two notifications and
the impugned order do not pass the test of “reasonable restrictions”
under article 23 of the Constitution, as they are not imposed under
the law, hence the impugned order as well as the notifications to
the extent of private lands offend Article 23 of the Constitution.
18. It has been pointed out by the respondents, rather proudly,
that the initiative against Qabza Groups & Illegal Land Grabbers
under the Notifications are well intentioned and has done a lot of
public good. Let us not forget that road to hell is also paved with
good intentions. The executive in their over zealousness to do
good have lifted their eyes off the law. Executive action,
instructions or policy, no matter how well intentioned, cannot hold
ground, unless they are backed by law. In a country governed by

W.P. No.25686/2011 14
laws and not by men, good intentions of the executive must follow
the law.
19. For the above reasons the impugned order dated 03.11.2011
passed by respondent No.1 is set aside with the direction that
possession of the land in question be restored to the petitioner
forthwith. Notifications-I and II dated 30.12.2009 and 18.05.2011,
respectively, issued by the Board of Revenue, Punjab, are also set
aside to the extent of private lands and private disputes as having
been issued without lawful authority.
20. Respondent No.1 has blatantly offended the Constitution
and the fundamental rights of the petitioner besides having
recklessly applied Notification-I. Respondent no.1 as Chairman
District Task Force, Sialkot is, therefore, burdened with
compensatory costs in the sum of Rs.50,000/- which shall be
deposited with any civil society organization in Punjab certified by
the Pakistan Centre of Philanthropy (PCP) (www.pcp.org.pk)
within one month from today. Reliance is placed on Kawas B. Aga
and another v. City District Government, Karachi (CDGK)
through Nazim-e-Ala and others, (PLD 2010 Karachi 182), The
Postmaster-General, Northern Punjab and (AJ&K), Rawalpindi v.
Muhammad Bashir and 2 others, (1998 SCMR 2386), Province of
Sindh through Secretary, Home Department and others v. Roshan
Din and others, (PLD 2008 S.C. 132), Inayatullah v. Sh.

M. Tahir*
W.P. No.25686/2011 15
Muhammad Yousaf and 19 others, (1997 SCMR 1020), Mst.
Afsana v. District Police Officer, (Operation), Khairpur and 5
others, (2007 YLR 1618) and M.D. Tahir, Advocate v. Federal
Government and others, (PLD 1999 Lahore 409).
21. This petition is allowed in the above terms alongwith
costs.
APPROVED FOR REPORTING
(Syed Mansoor Ali Shah)
Judge