GHULAM ALI Versus THE STATE

ORDER

This is a revision petition against the order dated 20‑9‑1971 of the Commissioner, Multan Division, by which he dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner regarding allotment of State land situated in Chak No. 45/KB, Tehsil Vehari, District Multan.

2. The facts briefly are that the petitioner was allotted State land in 1957 comprising Khasra Nos. 29/3, 4, 8, 9, 11 to 13 and 19 to 21 in Chak No. 45/KB, under the Grow More Food Scheme. The tenancy was resumed in 1963. In 1971 the petitioner filed an application for allotment of the aforesaid area relying upon the letter dated 31‑3‑1971 and 26‑4‑1971 of the Board of Revenue. The Assistant Vehari heard the petitioner and considered his application but keeping in view the decision of the Commissioner in a. similar case rejected it on 1‑7‑1971. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner. Multan Division the record in detail after summoning the Halqa Patwari and Colony Clerk: The learned Commissioner observed that the petitioner remained in cultivating possession of the area from Rabi 1957 to Rabi 1964. After resumption the same area was put to auction on 20‑9‑1963 at the rate of Rs 2,090 per acre in favour of Arshad Ali son of the petitioner and one Nasim Akhtar in equal shares. The area was however cancelled from the names of auction‑purchasers on 13‑10‑1970. The Commissioner also observed that two acres out of the disputed land viz. Khasra Nos. 30/1 and 29/13 had been allotted to an Islamabad Oustee. The Commissioner therefore held that the petitioner had surrendered his possession as G. M. F. lessee and his possession subsequently in another capacity does not constitute fulfilment of conditions of the Grow More Food Scheme. The appeal filed by the petitioner was therefore rejected by the Commissioner vide his order dated 20‑9‑1971. Hence this revision.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the following points:‑

(i) That the land was resumed in 1963 from the possession of the petitioner not on account of his failure to fulfil the conditions of allotment as assumed by the Commissioner in his order dated 20‑9‑1971 but because the 5 years period of lease which started in 1957‑58 had expired. There is nothing on record to show as to what were the grounds for resumption and whether there were breach of conditions as thought of by the Commissioner or the completion of the period of the lease as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The Collector should go into the original records of the termination and resumption of the lease from the petitioner in 1963.

(ii) According to the Government orders contained in Memorandum No. 1488‑71/1217‑CL‑III, dated 26‑4‑1971, the question of possession ceases to be of much importance, in so far as according to this Memorandum even if the allottees have been dispossessed from the land they have to be accommodated on some other land. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that, in this case the petitioner continues to be in possession of the land in dispute according to the Khasra Girdawari for Kharif 1971. He has also submitted that the sale by auction in favour of Arshad Ali son of the petitioner and Mst. Nasim Akhtar has already been cancelled vide Collector's order dated 13‑10‑1970 for want of payment of purchase price and the amount paid by the auction purchasers stands confiscated to the Government.

4. The Memorandum No. 14888‑71/1217‑CL‑III, dated 26‑4‑1971 lays down only one condition for the restoration of the lot namely that the allottee fulfils the terms and conditions on which the lease was granted.

5. The case is therefore remanded to the Collector, through the Commissioner for fresh disposal on merits after taking into account the above aspects of the case.

Orders may be issued and parties be informed accordingly.

Case remanded.