SHER MUHAMMAD Versus THE STATE

ORDER

1. These are seventeen revision petitions against the order of Additional Commissioner (Revenue) Sargodha, dated 23‑6‑1986, 26‑2‑1986, 30‑6‑1986 and 20‑7‑1986, whereby he dismissed the appeals of the‑petitioners against the order of A.C./Collector, Mianwali, dated 13‑4‑1986, 20‑4‑1986, 24‑4‑1986 and 27‑4‑1986. The latter had cancelled the allotments of the petitioners on the ground that these had been obtained on forged signatures of the A.C./Collector.

2. All the above cases are being decided by this single order as the same point is involved.

3. Facts are that Government in the year 1971 formulated a scheme to lease out available State land under Fifteen years Lease Scheme to land‑less tenants and self‑cultivating owners holding less than 4 acres of land. The basic condition of eligibility was that the person must have been a tenant during Kharif 1969 to Kharif 1970. After the allotments, complaints were received that ineligible persons had also benefited. The A.C./Collector, Mianwali carried out a survey and submitted his report to the D.C. on 9‑7‑1975 and ultimately Commissioner, Sargodha vide letter No.P/69(11) 1944/CA, dated 8‑Cr1977 allowed the Deputy Commissioner, Mianwali to review the allotments. Consequently, the Deputy Commissioner vide his order dated 23‑10‑1976 cancelled a number of allotments including those of the petitioners. The petitioners filed appeals before the Additional Commissioner (Cons.), who vide his order dated 19‑12‑1977 accepted the same on the ground that only the A.C. /Collector could review the order and not the D.C./Collector. A revision petition before Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue was filed and he vide his order dated 29‑5‑1983 upheld the order of the additional Commissioner and also ordered that the allotments made after 31‑5 1971 (the target date) be cancelled. He further directed that such allotments therein the possession had been taken over after cancellation may not be restored. The case was accordingly remanded to the .A.C /Collector.. Mianwali for further action.

4. According to the entries in the record, the petitioners were shown to be lessees of following State lands:‑.

2. Sr. No.

3. Name of lesse

4. Area Allotted

5. Chak No

6. Date of cancellation

7. Date of rejection of appeal

8. 1

9. Sher Muhammad

10. Rect. No. 39/3/1,4/1,5/1,6. Rect No. 40/5/1,6. Rect. No. 41/5, Rect. No.54/1 to 5.

11. 25/D.B. 27-4-1986

12. 27-4-1986

13. 26-6-1988

14. 2.

15. Fateh Muhammad

16. Rect No. 40/1, to 4,7 to 10. Rect. No. 41/1 to 4 Min

17. ‑do‑

18. ‑do‑

19. ‑do‑

20. 3.

21. Bashir Ahmad

22. Rect. No. 74/3/1,4 to 8 Rect No. 75/1 to 8, Rect. No. 76/4,5.

23. ‑do‑

24. ‑do‑

25. ‑do‑

26. 4.

27. Wali Ahmad

28. Rect. No. 73/1,2,6 to 10, rect. No. 74/1,2,3/2,9,10, Rect. No. 52/7, 8,11.

29. ‑do‑

30. ‑do‑

31. ‑do‑

32. 5.

33. Abdul Aziz

34. Rect. No. 80/1 to 10, Rect. No. 81/8 to 10.

35. -do-

36. 27-4-1986

37. ‑do‑

38. 6.

39. Mst. Hameedan

40. Rect.No.53/1 to 10,Rect.No. 81/8 to 10.

41. ‑do‑

42. 24-4-1986

43. ‑do‑

44. 7.

45. Ali Sher

46. Rect. No. 13/4,5,6 Rect. No. 14/6, Rect.No. 28/1,2.

47. 29/DM

48. 20-4-1986

49. ‑do‑

50. 8.

51. Akbar

52. Rect. No. 1/3 to 7, Rect.No.2/5, Rect No.5/1,2,9,10, Rect. No.6/1 to 6.

53. ‑do‑

54. ‑do‑

55. ‑do‑

56. 9.

57. Jamala

58. Rect.No.21/2/2,304,5 Rect. No. 76/8 to 10, Rect. No. 78/2,9.

59. ‑do‑

60. ‑do‑

61. ‑do‑

62. 10.

63. Muhammad Zaman

64. Rect. No. 4/2 to 4, 5/1,7/1,8, Rect No. 6/7 to 10.

65. -do-

66. -do-

67. ‑do‑

68. 11.

69. Abdul Sattar

70. Rect. No. 54/6 to 21 D.B

71. 49

72. 10,Rect. No. 55/1,3

73. 50

74. ‑do‑

75. 13-4-1986

76. 30-6-1986

77. 12.

78. Sultan

79. Rect. No. 14/1 to 5, 6/1,6/2,7 to 10.

80. 21/DB

81. 13-4-1986

82. 23-6-1986

83. 13.

84. Allah Yar

85. No.18/3 to 8

86. ‑do‑

87. ‑do‑

88. 30-6-1986

89. 14.

90. Muhammad Amir

91. Rect. No. 29/7, Rect.No.33/1 to 12, Rect No.34/3, 4/1

92. 30-4-1986

93. 15.

94. Muhammad Nawaz

95. Rect.No.104/5 to 10, Rect. No. 107/1,2,9,10 to 5, Rect. No. 108/1,2,9,10.

96. ‑do‑

97. ‑do‑

98. ‑do‑

99. 16.

100. Muhammad Sadiq

101. Rect.No.79/2,3,9 ,10 Rect. No. 103/5 to 10, Rect. No. 104/1,4.

102. ‑do‑

103. ‑do‑

104. 20-7-1986

105. 17.

106. Muhammad Hassan

107. Rect.No.43/1 to 7 11, Rect. No. 69/2 to 5, Rect. No. 70/7,8.

108. ‑do‑

109. ‑do‑

110. -do-

5. the A.C./Collector on the remand of the case, heard the petitioners, examined the record and found that according to the enquiry made by his predecessor the petitioners were not held to be tenants during Kharif 1969 to Kharif 1970 though their names were included in the list of scheduled tenants. 40 The record i.e. copes of Khasra Girdawri for the allotment period (Kharif 1969 to Kharif 1970) produced by the petitioners did not correspond to the actual entries in the Khasra Girdawari or with the entries in Roznamcha Waqiati. He further observed that Mian Abdus Samad, A.C./Collector, who was supposed to have made the allotments had stated before the D.C. that signatures on the allotment file were forged and the documents had been prepared afterwards. The 14 A.C./Collector found that warrants issued for the possession of the land specified different areas than those mentioned in the allotment file of the petitioners. He, therefore, cancelled the allotments and directed the Tehsildar to take over the possession of the land alongwith standing crops and prepare Tawan files against the petitioners from 1971 onwards.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners at length. It was argued that although the petitioners were leased out the lands under 15 years' Lease Scheme on 25‑5‑1971 and were duly given possession as endorsed by reports in the Roznamcha Waqiati of the Patwari, no opportunity was provided to the petitioners to prove their case. It was emphasized that the allotting authority (Mr. Samad) had not categorically denied his signatures but had only stated that although the style of signatures resembled his own, but the signatures were not his. This made the case disputed and a thorough enquiry should have been undertaken, which was never held.

7. I have considered the arguments, perused the record of the case and the record of the Patwari. The allotment file and enquiry report produced by the Colony Clerk has also been perused. One of the main grounds on which the allotments of the petitioners have been cancelled is the forged signatures of the then A.C./Collector (Mian Abdul Samad) who had allegedly stated before the. D.C./Collector that his signatures were forged. I have perused the enquiry file wherein the D.C./Collector had recorded his findings. It appears that no formal statement or written statement of Mian Abdul Samad was recorded by the D.C. although attendance of the officer is mentioned in the order sheet entry dated 23 10‑1977. However, in the detailed order of that date by the D.C./Collector it has been mentioned that Mian Abdul Samad after verifying the record had disowned his signatures and had pointed out that all the papers pertaining to the allotments were forged and he had never signed these. The petitioners had also admitted before the A.C./Collector during enquiry that their names were never drawn in the lottery proceedings as required by instructions and they were allotted the lands/subsequently. The Khasra Girdawri entries also do not record them as cultivating any land as tenants during the three crucial harvests from Kharif 1969. to Kharif 1970. It was then claimed that there were many other cases in which the same allegation of forged signatures had been made out but the resumed allotments were restored.

8. I feel that the petitioners have not been given full chance to lead their defence before the A.C./Collector in the light of order of my predecessor. It is, therefore, fair that an opportunity is provided to the parties to produce evidence so that the eligibility of the petitioners to obtain lease, and other factors are decided in a detailed order. The enquiry should be held by A.C./Collector under the supervision (sic). In the meantime if the petitioners are still in possession of land they may continue provided market rent of the land actually in their possession is paid by them. This possession which will be of on year to year basis will be specifically subject to findings of the enquiry and will not confirm any right for further lease or other benefits like proprietary rights etc. in case the matter is decided against them.

111. A.A./272/R Petitions accepted.