AHMAD SAEE Versus THE STATE

ORDER

This petition has been preferred against the order dated 22‑6‑2000 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Faisalabad Division, Faisalabad, whereby he dismissed the petitioner's appeal.

2. Briefly, the facts of this case are that the petitioner was illegal occupant of the land measuring 26 Kanals and 16 Marlas comprising Khasra Nos.17/13/2, 14/2, 17, 18 situated in Chak No.610/GB, Tehsil Tandalianwala. The A.C./Collector, Tandalianwala vide order dated 30‑7‑1999 initiated proceedings under sections 32/34 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 for ejectment of Ahmad Saee, the present petitioner and his brother namely Nosher. The petitioner's appeal tiled against this order was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Faisalabad Division, Faisalabad vide impugned order dated 22‑6‑2000. Hence this revision petition.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for' the petitioner. It is contended that the petitioner was a sub‑tenant under one Noor Muhammad son of Heraj and on this account was entitled to the grant of proprietary rights. It is further contended that the ejectment order has been passed by the A.C/Collector without issuing notice under section 24 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 and affording him an opportunity of being heard, He further contended that the petitioner has developed the land with hard labour and he is ready to deposit the Government dues.

4. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. and have examined the record available on the file. A perusal of the photo copies of the, Register Khasra Girdawari indicates Ahmad Saee, the petitioner, to be an illegal occupant of Khasra Nos.17/13/2, 14/2, 17 and to measuring 26 Kanals and 16 Marlas. There is nothing on record to show that he was a sub‑tenant under the original allottee. It is, therefore, not necessary to examine whether the sub‑tenant was eligible for grant of proprietary rights under the Scheme on which he basis his claim to the exclusion of original allottee. A sub‑tenant can be considered for allotment of land when it is proved that he was not engaged by the tenants as such from the date of cultivation that would be relevant to determine the eligibility of _a tenant in case he was not there. Any possession of the sub‑tenant from a date subsequent to the date of eligibility laid down in a scheme would not entitle him to consideration. Similarly, the possession of an allotted piece of land by a person claiming to be a sub‑tenant over and above the head of original tenant does not confer the status or sub‑tenant on him. An illegal occupant can in no case substitute a sub‑tenant. The general principle for allotment of land to a sub‑tenant where provided is that the entitlement of original tenant should first be fulfilled and it any land in the original tenancy is left out after satisfying the claim of tenant in terms a the Scheme so noticed, if may be considered for allotment where provided. In any case, sub‑tenant's right to a tenancy cannot override that of original tenant a, his status as such is subservient to him. There are no ground to disagree with the findings of the learned Additional Commissioner. The revision petition is accordingly rejected.

S.A.K./53/Rev Order rejected.