Find a Lawyer

Revision No. 236 of 1960‑61, decided on 14th October 1961, District Multan.

Penalty‑Ex‑parte order without con sidering question whether cultivation was in fact illicit‑Land entered in Jamabandis and Khasra Girdawari as occupied by cultivator as tenant‑at‑will but not entered in Allotment Register‑Cultivation, held, not illicit.

-- Commissioner may interfere in Revision despite expiry of limitation where there is "material irregularity" justifying interference.

Abdul Latif for Petitioner.

I notice that the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), dis missed the appeal before him on the ground that it was time barred. He does not appear to have considered extension of the period of limitation on the grounds that the petitioner had not been served and the Collector's order was ex‑pane. The peti tioner's counsel has again affirmed before me that the thumb impression on the notice was not that of Maroo Khan petitioner. I do not need to go into this question in detail because I find that the learned Collector has not applied his mind to the basic facts of the case. For instance he has not even cared to give the field numbers, in respect of which tawan for illicit cultivation has been imposed. These happen to be Killas Nos. 14 and 29 of rectangle No. 43. Moreover, the absence of the petitioner In the proceedings has been taken to justify imposition of tawan for illicit cultivation, without it being proved at all that cultivation was illicit, Copies of the Jamabandis show that the petitioner in respect of these two Killas also, is a tenant‑at‑will and liable for payment of rent at the rate of Rs. 35 per acre per annum, in additions to land revenue and cesses. I have seen the original Jamabandis and Khasra Girdawaris and the allotment register produced by the Patwari. The petitioner's counsel claims that as these two Killas were lying vacant continuously, the petitioner had obtained temporary allotment from the Tehsildar, but apparently a record was not made in the register and there is no entry in it that this land has been granted to the petitioner for temporary cultivation. I am of the opinion that this may very well be so. At any rate there appear no adequate grounds for the Collector to hold that the petitioner's cultivation was illicit in the face of the above mentioned entries in the revenue records.

In this position, I find that there has been a material irregula rity justifying interference in revision. In fact in view of the amendment of section 16 of the Land Revenue Act in 1957, the learned Additional Commissioner himself, was empowered to interfere suo motu, despite limitation. I, therefore, accept the revision, set aside the Collector's order and direct that instead of the tawan, assessed rent from the petitioner, should be recovered at the rates shown as due in the revenue records.

A. H.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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