ABDUL MANAN AND ANOTHER Versus NOOR MUHAMMAD

ORDER

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and seen the records of the case. The learned counsel for the petitioners has produced a printed schedule in which the area in dispute has been shown as being available for 10 years lease. The question whether or not this area should have been included because of it being under cultivation before should have been checked before the printing of the schedule. All the functionaries who were concerned with the preparation and checking of the schedule obviously failed in exercising due diligence and care by including blatantly an area which had been under cultivation even prior to 1960 and which was adjacent to the village Abadi. This is a serious irregularity for which the Board of Revenue should be informed as to what action has been taken against the functionaries who were connected with the preparation and checking of the area in question.

2. So far as the petitioners are concerned, they rightly contest that after the inclusion of the area in the printed schedule they genuinely competed in the tender and were successful. The area was allotted to them in 1968 and they claim to have invested a certain amount of money for setting up tube‑well and taking other action to cultivate the area. They have been paying rent regularly. They have thus not committed any breach of the conditions of allotment. The lease cannot therefore, be cancelled at this stage without the lessees being paid compensation. If the Commissioner is anxious to cancel the lease for which there is no legal justification, Government will have to pay compensation adequately to the petitioners for such a cancellation. The other alternative is that this area not having qualified for inclusion in the 10 years lease should be resumed by the Government after the termination of the lease and no benefits should be made available to the lessees in case any benefits are subsequently decided by the Government to be given to the 10 years lessees.

3. It has been reported by the petitioners that their crops have been taken over by the field staff on 20‑10‑1971. In view of what has been stated above, the possession of the lot and the crops should be restored to the petitioners.

4. Orders may be issued and parties informed accordingly.

Order accordingly.