HYDER Versus THE STATE

ORDER

This is a review petition against the order dated 23‑4‑1967 passed by Mr. Hussain Haider, C. S. P. the former Member (Colonies) Board of Revenue, by which he dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner regarding allotment of State land situated in Chak No. 216/G.B. Tehsil Samundari, District Layallpur.

2. The facts are that the petitioner was allotted certain land to Chak No. 533/G.B. Tehsil Samundari, District Lyallpur under the Ejected Tenants Scheme 1956. The area was ear marked for the new colony of Town Committee Samundari and the petitioner was given alternative land in Chak No. 216/G.B. vide Collector's order dated 27‑3‑1963. The allottee however failed to get proprietary rights in the land for the reason that according to the policy of the Board of Revenue, in view of the instructions contained in Memorandum No. 4517‑63/3660 C. G. 111, dated 17‑10‑1965, the lessee was not entitled to the allotment of alternative land which was treated as ab initio

3. The petitioner's main contention is that since the Govern ment had changed its policy vide their letter No. 5086‑59/ 1683 CGIII, dated 1‑6‑1970, he might be considered for confer ment of proprietary rights in the land in Chak No. 216/GB, that was allotted to him in lieu of the land falling within muni cipal limits and on which he still holds possession.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and seen the records of the case and have also obtained comments from the Collector and the executive side of the Board of Revenue Colony. The Collector vide his report No: 774‑G/CA dated 30-11-1971 has reported that the petitioner is in possession of land in dispute due to stay order by the High Court. The policy side of the Board of Revenue Colony has reported.

"The Ejected Tenants Scheme came to an end in the year 1960. The lessees whose lands fell within 10 miles of the outer limits of a first class Municipality and within 5 miles of the limits of other' Municipalities, Town Committees, Cantonment Boards and notified areas were not entitled to get proprietary rights. They were also not entitled to get alternative land. They have/had to be ejected and the land to be resumed. But recently they have been allowed the concession of alternate area with proprietary rights therein as per Government decision contained in sub‑paras. (1) (2) and (3) of concluding para of Colonies Department Circular Memo. No. 5086‑69/1683‑CL III, dated 1 st June 1970, reproduced below:‑

(1) Those otherwise entitled to proprietary rights would be offered alternate areas elsewhere and they would be treated for the sake of the proprietary rights in the same manner as if they have been settled on the alternate area from the very beginning of the grant;

(2) They will not be dislodged from their existing tenancies unless and until they were provided with alternate tenancies elsewhere;

(3) Those who have already been dispossessed and their areas have been utilized for other purposes would be treated in the same manner as in paras. (1) and (2) above."

5. Under the above circumstances and the revised policy of the Government, the case is remanded to the Collector through the Commissioner for fresh disposal on merits of the case in the light of the latest instructions of the Government.

Case remanded.