P L D 1972 Rev (PLP)

Date. of institution: 24th August 1971. I have seen the record of the case and have heard the learned counsel for the appellant. Sahib Zada Naseer Bakhsh, P. C. S., Addl. Commissioner (Revenue), Multan Division, rejected the appeal of the appellant vide his order dated 16‑7‑1971 on the following ground :‑ "the appellant cultivated the maximum area from Kharif 57 to Rabi 66 which is 46 kanals 16 marlas out of 101 kanals. The area is still reduced in the crops from kharif '69 to Rabi '71, when the area brought under cultivation appears to be only 27 kanals. Anyhow, the appellant cultivated not more than 26 kanals and 16 marlas which was less than 50 of the area of the lot. He is not entitled to proprietary rights. The appeal is rejected." The appellant has produced copies of Khasra Girdawari to show that during the 5 years period, from Kharif 1959 when he was put in possession of the land to Rabi 1964, he brought under cultivation about 67 kanals which represents more than 50% of the allotted area. The Addl. Commissioner has erred in taking harvest subsequent to Rabi 1964 into account. 1n terms o Punjab Government Memorandum No. 5449/58/6399‑C(G), dated the 13th September 1958, the period of leases under Grow More Food Scheme was extended from three years to five years. Vide Punjab Government Memorandum No.4826‑6,2/4419‑S(G)III, dated the 22nd October 1962, Government conveyed their decision to sell State land to the Grow More Food lessees whose terms had expired in Rabi 1962 or was to expire in subsequent year. The two memoranda read together would imply that the relevant period for granting of proprietary rights would be five years from the date of possession under the scheme. In the present case since the lease began from Kharif 1959, the relevant period would be up to Rabi 1964. The other relevant question to be examined is the area brought under cultivation. Vide Punjab Government Memo randum No. 5449‑58/7272‑C(G), dated the 29th October 1958, it has been laid down that "at least 30% of the area must have been brought under cultivation". The Addl. Commr. as in arriv ing at his decision, stated at one place that "the area is still reduced In the crops from Kharif 1969 to Rabi 1971. The Addl. Commissioner seems to have used the expression area "brought under cultivation" as synonymous of area under crop whereas the two have to be distinguished, since under the cropping pattern an area brought under cultivation has also to be left fallow according to normal practice and is not always to be under the crop. In his appeal the appellant has made two important points namely : that the Khasra Girdawari was not examined when the case was decided by the Addl. Commissioner and that the appel lant has installed tube‑well 4‑5 years ago for the development of the land. The appellant has also submitted an affidavit stating that he is still in possession of the area in question. In view of the above factors the case is remanded to the D.C./Collector, through the Commissioner, Multan. The D.C./ Collector should re‑examine the case in the light of the above observations with regard to the relevant period and the area brought under cultivation, with reference to the revenue records in original and decide the case on merits in the light of the current Government orders on the subject. The above observations with regard to the shortcomings found in the judgment of Sahibzada Naseer Bakhsh, Addl. Commissioner, Multan Division, may also be brought to his notice through the Commissioner. Orders may be issued and parties may be informed accordingly. Case remanded.