Find a Lawyer

---S. 164--Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912), Ss. 10 & 24--Proprietary rights--Claim by temporary lease-holder--Same land leased out to another person as alternate land under Grow More Food Scheme on same day--Subsequently bulk of land allotted to other person cancelled--Cancelled land would stand allotted to petitioner if still in possession of land--Such person if eligible to obtain lease should be allowed to retain same in case of his paying outstanding dues with interest and penal interest--Case of proprietary rights, held could be considered according to policy.

Mian Mahboob Alam for Petitioner.

This is a revision petition against the order of Additional Commissioner (Revenue) Faisalabad, dated 11-3-1985 whereby he dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and upheld the order of Assistant Commissioner/ Collector Jaranwala, dated 6-1-1985 vide which he had rejected the application of the petitioner for the grant of proprietary rights and directed to prepare Tawan file against him from Kharif 1973.

2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner had leased out Sqr. Nos. 29/1 to 4, 7 to 14 measuring 15A-4K-4M situated in Chak N0.276/GB on 9-9-1973 as actual tiller. On the same day the same land was allotted to Sharif (not impleaded as party) as alternate land under Grow More Food Scheme. The petitioner filed appeal and the Additional Commissioner remanded the case. The DC/Collector on 31-5-1978 upheld the allotment of Sharif. The petitioner again filed appeal which was rejected by the Commissioner on 24-6-1979. The petitioner did not file any appeal against the order but made a separate application that Sharif was not eligible to obtain allotment under Grow More Food Scheme. The case was enquired and the AC/Collector on 24-2-1983 allowed to remain only 4A-4K of land in the allotment of Sharif and cancelled the other from his name. The petitioner had applied for proprietary rights on 26-11-1979. The AC/Collector considered his application and held that no doubt the land had been cancelled from the name of Sharif but it had not been restored to the petitioner. He did not deposit any rent after 1973-74 and his possession over the land was of an unauthorised occupant. He rejected his application for proprietary rights and directed to recover Tawan from him. Aggrieved by the order he filed appeal but it was rejected by the Additional Commissioner. Hence, this revision petition.

3. I have heard the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that he was cultivating the disputed land since 1967 as tenant under Mst. Bakhat Bhari lessee. The land was resumed for her under M.L.R. 115. He contended that on 9-8-1973 the land was leased out to him as actual tiller and since then he was in continuous cultivating possession of the land. He argued that on 9-8-1973, the same land was allotted to Muhammad Sharif under Grow More Food Scheme by the DC/Collector without any notice to the petitioner. He argued that after litigation 8 acres out of the allotted land to Muhammad Sharif were cancelled and these were with the petitioner as lessee. He contended that he was in possession of the land as a lessee and was eligible for proprietary rights. He argued that the AC/Collector rejected the application of the petitioner for proprietary rights holding that the land had not been restored to him. He argued that when on the same day the same land was leased out to two persons and the lease of 8 acres out of that land was cancelled from one it automatically remained allotted to the other person. He further argued that the petitioner was in possession of the land and before its lease to Muhammad Sharif a notice should have been given to the petitioner. He argued that his lease was for 5 years from 1973 and had expired in 1978 and thereafter vide letter, dated 1-3-1978 extension in lease was to be automatically made. He urged that he may be allowed proprietary rights of the land which remained in his possession as lessee since 1973.

4. The Colony Clerk stated that the petitioner had not deposited any rent of the disputed land. He stated that the same land on the same date was leased out to the petitioner and one other person (Muhammad Sharf). He contended that 8 acres out of the allotment of Muhammad Sharif was cancelled and only 4 acres remained with him under Grow More Food Scheme.

5. I have considered the arguments and perused the record of the case. On 9-8-1973 the same land was leased out to the petitioner under temporary cultivation scheme and to one Muhammad Sharif under Grow More Food Scheme. After prolonged litigation Muhammad Sharif was allowed to retain only 4A-4K of land and the rest was cancelled. The cancelled land also stood allotted to the petitioner. If the petitioner is still in possession of the land and was eligible to obtain the lease, he may be allowed to retain the lease if he pays the outstanding dues with interest and penal interest and his case for proprietary right be also considered according to the policy and if he fails to deposit the rent etc. or either was not eligible to obtain lease he be ousted from the land and it be disposed of as per policy. The revision petition is thus allowed.

A . A . Revision allowed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.