P L D 1964 W (PLP)

Mohammad Ilyas Khan for Petitioner. Zahur‑Ul‑Haq for Respondent. This is a revision petition against order, dated 19th September 1962 of the Additional Commissioner, Sargodha Division, whereby he confirmed order dated 26th March 1962, of the Collector (S. D. O.) Toba Tek Singh, restoring allotment of Killa Nos. 19 to 25 of Sqr. No. 56, Chak No. 536 GB., Tehsil Toba Tek Singh to the respondent.

2. The facts are that the petitioner was granted eight Killas of State land under the Ejected Tenants Scheme in 1957. He states that the land was a sandy and water supply arrangements were not given, he did not take it over. Later on he applied to the Collector that the respondent had become ineligible under para. 2 (6) (ii) of the 1958 Scheme to retain his eight acres allotment as a landless refugee since he had been allowed more than three acres under the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme. The Collector, after scrutiny of the record, came to the conclusion that the res pondent owned a little more than 3 acres evacuee land, but he did not consider that it would be fair to cancel his allotment. He, therefore, dismissed the application and recommended that his name along with those of other ejected tenants, who had not been allotted any land may be forwarded to the B. O. R. The peti tioner filed an appeal to the Additional Commissioner, Sargodha, who rejected it but directed the Collector "to consider him for re‑allotment of the land originally allotted to him, if it is still lying un-allotted". Hence this revision.

3. I have carefully considered the different aspects of the case in terms of 1958 Scheme and of letter No. 12481/59‑4437 0 (G), dated 5th September 1959, which extended in scheme up to end of Rabi, 1960. It transpires that Asmat Ullah respondent and his brother, Faqir Mohammad had got 68 kanals of land in village Sanjarpur Tehsil Sadiqabad, allotted to them in proportion of 26 : 91 on 14th July 1959, vide copy of the R. L.

11. The res pondent's share in this, comes to 22 kanals only and is, therefore, not three acres, required for disqualification. The respondent and his brother thereafter, got 40 kanals and 18 marlas in equal shares allotted to them m Chak No. 132, Tehsil Khanewal on 25‑2‑

60. This raised the respondents' total holding to a little over five acres. Had the ejected tenants' of annual allotments been continued on a year to year basis as formerly, the respondent would clearly have become ineligible to continue with effect from Kharif, 1960. However, the Government which had invited the Commissioners views about the continuation of the Scheme decided in their letter No. Col‑8124/24‑57(4167), dated 8th October 1960 to confer proprietary rights on the then existing ejected tenants, who were not ineligible in terms of the aforesaid letter. I have in a number of rulings, the latest of which is R. O. R. No. 44 of 1961‑62, decided on 5‑6‑63, held that the ineligibility clauses of the 1958 Scheme would disqualify lessees under the Scheme so long the Scheme lasted. This would in effect mean that if a lessee under the Scheme had become ineligible for renewal extension of his annual lease by reason of his having come to own three acres or more of land, or to cultivate five acres or more of State or private land in Rabi, 1959, cancellation of the lease would be justified if this ineligibility is proved within 3 years of the discontinuance of the Scheme. I have also held that after the Scheme is discontinued and option to purchase proprietary rights is granted under the aforesaid letter of 8th October 1960, these ineligibility clauses cease to operate and the option to acquire proprietary rights is governed by the terms of that letter.

4. This being the position I must hold that the respondent's ownership of 22 kanals of land on 14th July 1959 and his subsequent acquisition of 29 kanals and 9 marlas of land on 25th February 1960, do not attract the ineligibility clauses of 1958 Scheme. As such the orders of the Courts below are correct. There is, therefore, no force in any of the grounds of revision, which is rejected.

5. I would in conclusion further direct that the instructions contained in the last paragraph of the learned Additional Com missioner's order, dated 17th September 1962 calling upon the Collector "to re‑allot the land originally allotted to him, if it is still lying unallotted", is unwarranted, since the Scheme was dis continued in 1960. The petitioner has, therefore, no right to allotment of the land which he formerly refused to take. K. M. A. Petition rejected.