The main legal point established is that the petitioners were entitled to ownership rights under the government orders, and the failure to attest mutation would not affect their right to be declared as owners of the land.

1. Under the " Grow More Food Scheme" 4 Kanal and 16 marlas of land out of the State Land was allotted to the father of the petitioners vide Order No. 711 dated 22.04.2009 Bk. The said scheme was launched in order to make the un-cultivable land cultivable as also to give incentive to the landless persons. The petitioners, in pursuance to this Order have been cultivating the said land. The father of the petitioners pursued his case for transfer of ownership rights under different Government Orders i.e L-B/6 of 1958 read with Government Order No. 434 of 1966 but the revenue authorities did not adhere to the request of the father of the petitioners and declined the prayer. In the meanwhile the father of the petitioners died in June, 2002 and the land in question became the subject matter of acquisition by the respondents for construction of the road. Acquisition proceedings were initiated which finally culminated in passing of the award by the Collector. However, no notice was issued to the petitioners by the Collector under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act and their case for compensation was not considered. As a result of this the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners.

2. The case of the petitioners is that land was allotted to their father under the "Grow More Food Scheme" and under different government orders they were entitled for conferring ownership rights, particularly after issuance of Government Order No. 434 of 1966. This was a statutory duty of the respondents to effect the changes in the revenue record by conferring ownership rights on the petitioners.

3. On the other hand, respondents’ case is that the petitioners have been allotted the State land under "Grow More Food Scheme" and under the said scheme the allottee is recorded as "tenant at will" in Khasra Girdawari from Rabi 1956 BK to Rabi 2004 and thereafter as "Gair Maroosi" . The ownership rights have not been conferred on them as such they are not entitled to receive any compensation.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

5. The short question that falls for consideration is as to whether the respondents had a statutory obligation to confer the ownership rights on the petitioners on the basis that they were entitled for the same under Government Order L-B/6 of 1958 read with Government Order No. 434 of 1966. It is admitted by the respondents that petitioners have been recorded as "Tenant At Will". The possession of the petitioners being prior to 1957 makes them eligible to be conferred with the ownership rights under Government Order L-B/6 of 1958.

6. Insofar as the question of application of Government Order No. L-B/6 of 1958 is concerned, it will clearly apply to those persons who are in occupation of the evacuee or State lands. In terms of this order, the occupants of the State Land, after being recorded as tenant at will, becomes entitled to ownership rights over such land. Government Order No. S-434 of 1966 dated 3rd June, 1966 provides that proprietory rights be conferred on the cultivators of State lands who are permanent residents of the State and have already been declared as tenants-at-will.

7. Looking to the definition and the applicability of the aforesaid orders,it be seen that respondents have admitted the petitioners to be "tenants-at-will" and by virtue of Government Order S-434 of 1966 the petitioners will be entitled to be conferred with the ownership rights.

8. I, accordingly hold that the petitioners are eligible to be declared as owners of the land which was allotted to them. The contention of the respondents that as the land has been allotted to the petitioners under the Grow More Food Scheme, and thus would not make them entitled to any benefit, in my, opinion, is not correct position of law. All that makes a person eligible for conferring the ownership rights is that he should be in possession of the State land and not that under which scheme land has been allotted to him.

9. The second question raised by th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document