Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Revision No. 328 of 1960‑61, decided on 31st January 1962, District Sheikhupura.
‑Filed after 90 days and without application for condonation of delay‑Not entertained.
‑Develop ment of Scheme‑Allotment‑Deputy Commissioner's power to regularise allotments and to make fresh allotments‑Grant of proprietary rights to allottees of State land‑Letter of Government dated 8th October, 1960. '
‑Does not apply to annual leases.
‑ Collusiv ejectment‑Tenant not entitled to allotment.
The present 4 Revisions and Counter‑Revision Petitions No. 249 Rashid v. Dil Muhammad, No. 300, Dil Muhammad v. Rashid, and No. 258, Rashid v. Abdul Aziz and No. 328, Abdul Aziz v. Rashid, have arisen from the Additional Commissioner, Lahore's two orders dated 23rd June and 30th July, 1960, respectively. In this single order, I shall dispose of them all, as the facts of the cases are interconnected.
It transpires that Rashid was ejected from some private land on 15‑6‑1958. He applied on 24‑6‑1958, for allotment of State land as an ejected tenant. He was allotted land measuring 43 kanals and 1 marla by the Collector vide his order dated 20‑10‑1959, constituted as below: ‑
(i) 31 kanals from Killas Nos. 18/1, 18/2, 19, 20, and 24/1 of square No. 24, which were on temporary allotment with Dil Muhammad.
(ii) 12 kanals out of Killas Nos. 24/2 and 25 of square No. 25, which were with Abdul Aziz, as temporary allottee.
The Allotments of Dil Muhammad and Abdul Aziz of this land continuing since 1947 were .cancelled. They both went in review to the Collector separately against the allotment of the land in dispute to Rashid. The Collector accepted both the review petitions under, his orders dated 18‑12‑1959 and held that both Dil Muhammad and Abdul Aziz were entitled to retain the allotments as the former's father was an allottee of only 50 kanals and 14 marlas (being less than 8 acres which would have rendered him ineligible), while the latter was an allottee of only 2 acres under the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme and therefore his allotment also should not have cancelled. He, therefore, directed that Rashid be accomodated elsewhere. Rashid filed two separate appeals to the Additional Commissioner against Dil Muhammad and Abdul Aziz. Both these appeals were dismissed by the Additional Commissioner in separate orders. In the order dated 23rd June, 1960, he found that neither Rashid nor Dil Muhammad was entitled to the allotment under the relevant Scheme contained in letter No. 650/TH, dated 17th July 1952, is subsequently modified by Memo. No. 1624‑55/817‑C, dated 12th March, 1955. He, however, found no justification in interfering with the order of the learned Collector, but suggested that the question of renewal of this lease may be considered at the expiry of the term so as to determine whether the respondent. (Dil Muhammad), is entitled to it or not. He also found that both the parties were not entitled to this allotment of land. In his order dated 30th July, 1960, he observed that
"Under this Scheme the eligibility of allotment depends upon the conditions that the allottee should be a self -cultivator, the area owned or allotted to him under the Rehabilitation Scheme should not exceed two acres and that he does not hold any tenancy elsewhere. In cases in which allotments have been made under the previous Scheme promulgated by the late Punjab Government Memo. No. 650‑TH, dated the 7th July, 1952, it was provided that the allottee should have been continuously in possession of the land for 3 years before the first Scheme was promulgated. The petitioner has never been in possession of this land and against this the respondent has been in possession of this land since 1947. He has, however, inherited another 5 kanals of land making his total allotment to 2 acres and 5 kanals, whereby the Condition of the maximum allotment of 2 acres has been contravened. That has rendered him ineligible for allotment of Crown land under the latter Scheme."
However, since allotment had been made to one of them by the Collector, he thought that "it would not serve useful purpose to disturb him at this late stage". While rejecting the appeal he suggested that the Collector will consider the question of eligibility to allotment after the termination of the lease. It is from these two orders that the present revisions and counter revisions have been preferred.
I find that the revisions by Dil Muhammad and Abdul Aziz are both time‑barred as they have been filed after 90 days and there is no application for condonation of delay. I shall, however deal with them on merits, as the orders pertaining to these two parties are not final and unless they are disposed of on merits, it will not be possible to dispose of Rashid's revision against them and even if Rashid's petitions are dismissed and the Collector gives a finding against Dil Muhammad and Abdul Aziz at the renewal of the tenancies at the end of the agricultural year, they will still be able to go up in appeal and revision.
The crucial point for determination in all these revisions and counter‑revision petitions is the eligibility of parties to allotment under the Ejected and Landless Tenants' Scheme. One thing, which has astounded me is that neither the Collector nor the Additional Commissioner has cared to refer to the provisions of the Landless Refugees and Ejected Tenants' Scheme. I think the Additional Commissioner's order was passed at the end of July, 1960. Memo. dated 12th March, 1955 pertaining to the agricultural year 1955‑56 alone, is quoted by him. Further instructions 'on the B subject were issued in 1956, 1957 and 1958. The 1958 Scheme was continued upto Rabi 1960 under Memorandum No. 12481 59/4437‑0 (G), dated 5th September, 1959, not only regularized allotments made, but also enabled "the Deputy Commissioner to make fresh allotments under this Scheme to tenants of evacuee land and other private land in the former Province of Punjab, who have been ejected after 30th June, 1958." This shows how necessary it is for the Colonies Branch of the Board of Revenue to issue a consolidated circular clarifying the Scheme in all its aspects. This is all the more necessary since under memorandum No. Col‑8/24‑ 57 (4167), dated 8th October, 1960, Government have been pleased to accord sanction to the grant of proprietary c rights to the allottees of State land under the Ejected Tenants' Scheme sanctioned by Government from time to time till 1958 subject to the following major conditions: ‑
(i) Each case will be duly scrutinized, to ensure that it fulfils the conditions necessary for the transfer of proprietary rights. Proprietary right will be allowed to the existing lessees in the older colonies.
(ii) Only, those lessees will be eligible to purchase proprietary rights who actually cultivate the land themselves and not those who are merely shown as khud kashi in the Girdawari Registers. Cultivating the land and through the members of his family will be considered as self cultivation. But cultivation by hired labour be excluded from the terms of eligibility.
(iii) Persons owning more than 25 acres of irrigated of 50 acres of un‑irrigated land shall be excluded from being; eligible to acquire proprietary rights under this Scheme.
(iv) Option to purchase shall be exercised only after the expiry of three years from the date of commencement of the tenancy and not earlier.
(v) The lessees shall be entitled to acquire proprietary rights provided 90 per cent of the land has been developed to the satisfaction of the Collector and he has fulfilled the other conditions of the lease satisfactorily.
I have cited these here since these revisions and counter‑revisions are really being pursued because tenants under the Scheme hay;, become eligible for the grant of proprietary rights.
I will deal with the merits of Dil Muhammad and Abdul Aziz's cases first, since if they are field to be entitled to the allotment, the Collector's review order will be upheld and Muhammad Rashid, if he is found to be entitled, will have to be accommodated elsewhere. Dil Muhammad's case: ‑
The 31 kanals in dispute were allotted to him in September 1947, when he was an infant only 5 years old and as such was ineligible for the grant. He was, therefore, 17 years old at the time of the Collector's review order dated 18‑12‑1939, in his favour and, therefore, a minor. The Additional Commissioner's order shows that his father also has an allotment of 8 acres, which would make him doubly ineligible. In actual fact, however, his father has 50 kanals, 14 marlas.
Measuring Dil Muhammad's entitlement on the terms cited above, it must be remembered that Dil Muhammad has never been a self‑cultivator, as is clear from the Khasra Girdawaris in respect of the 4 field numbers. He, however claims that the members of his family have been cultivating for him during his minority and that this should be presumed to be self cultivation within the meaning of con dition (ii) above. There is sonic force in this plea. There can, how ever, be no doubt that Dil Muhammad's family have been committ ing a fraud on the Scheme by obtaining these 31 kanals in favour of an infant. At most his father could have obtained one acre more on account of the fact that Dil Muhammad was his minor son. The provisions of section 16 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act do not apply to these annual leases. In my opinion Dil Muhammad has no legitimate right to the allotment. His revision petition, is therefore, rejected.
Abdul Aziz's case: ‑‑
It has been established that Abdul Aziz owns 26 kanals of land. He is, therefore, ineligible by virtue of para. 2(c) (i) of the 1958 Scheme, which disqualifies an owner or allottee of 3 acres or more of agricultural land under the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme. His revision petition has no merit and is also rejected.
Muhammad Rashid's case: ‑
I have carefully considered whether Muhammad Rashid can at all be entitled to benefit under this scheme. It is true that he obtained a certificate that he was ejected in 1957‑58, and was initially allotted land on 10‑9‑1959, on the basis of his application dated 24‑6‑1958. The terms of Memorandum No. 1248‑59/4437‑C (G), dated 5th September, 1959, do not appear to cover the case of a person who was ejected before 30th June 1958, but had not been allotted land under the Scheme upto then. Even if this difficulty is surmounted, the facts are that within 2 months of the allotment and before possession could be given to him, the Collector reviewed the previous orders of allotment in his favour, cancelled them and directed that he be accommodated elsewhere. The fact that he has not applied for alternative land to accommodate him is significant. Another important feature of his case is that the Collector completely ignored the important Memorandum No. 3413‑58/3234‑C (G), dated 21st June, 1958, from the Secretary (Colonies) to all Deputy Commissioners in the former Punjab Province etc. in which it was laid down that in order to prevent the wide‑spread abuse of tenants obtaining ejectment orders deliberately and in collusion with the land‑owners, the following questions 14 and 15 be added in the memo. for ejected tenants
"14. Was the ejectment order against the tenant or tenants passed ex parte
15. Did the tenant or tenants contest ejectment, and if so, on what grounds "
It was pointed out that the replies to these two questions will indicate whether or not the ejectment was collusive if the Colony; Revenue Assistant is satisfied that the ejectment was collusive, the tenant should be considered ineligible for allotment of land under the 1958 Scheme. I questioned Muhammad Rashid on this aspect of the case. He stated before me that he was ejected from 2 acres of land on the ground that it was required for self- cultivation by the landlord. He has, however, admitted before me that after his ejectment, the land has not been brought under self‑cultivation, but has been given to other tenants. I have no doubt in my mind that Muhammad Rashid's case is one of collusive ejectments in fraud of the Scheme, which was assuming scandalous proportions at the time and which led to the aforementioned directives from the Board of Revenue. I do not for a moment believe that landlords would eject from the 2 acres only for purpose of self‑cultivation and that after the ejected tenant had obtained his certificate of being an ejected tenant, he would not take the land over to bring it under self‑cultivation but would give it to some one else. In these circumstances and since even the initial allotment order in Muhammad Rashid's favour, which the Collector had promptly reviewed and set aside, is subsequent to these instructions, I must hold that no benefit can accrue to Muhammad Rashid from the certificate of ejectment, which I find was obtained by him collusively. His revision petition also has no force and is dismissed.
In the result, therefore, the land reverts back to the State. The orders of the Collector and the Commissioner in favour of all these candidates are set aside. The Collector can make use of it for some suitable purpose, preferably by inclusion in some deficient Pedigreed Livestock Scheme plot of below 12J acres or in providing accommodation to tenants under the 1958 Scheme, whose lands have been included in some Pedigreed Live stock lots.
K. M. A.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer