P L D 1961 W (PLP)

Grant‑Cancellation of grant on ‑default of payment of installments‑Notice not necessary‑Cancellation automatically follows. This is a remokal fine case which was remanded to the Additional Deputy Commissioner and the Revenue Officer, Barrage, under my order dated 5‑12‑1959.1 have perused the reports of the two officers dated 16‑2‑1960 and 8‑4‑1960, respectively. The question of automatic cancellation of a grant on default in payment of installments has been fully gone into and it is quite clear to me now that the Standing Instruction No. 10 (A) entitled "Cancellation Policy" is not an accurate summary of the relevant Orders and Resolutions of the old Sind Government. The Revenue Officer has, for example, now submitted a copy of Government Resolution, R. D. No. 1204‑F/46, dated the 18th November 1947, which in its paragraph 2 clearly lays down that "if any installment is not paid by the due date, it results in automatic cancellation of the grant . . . . ". Te cancellation order is to be given effect to from the 15th June of the following year, but the cancellation is to be without doubt immediate and automatic. From another Government Order, No. R‑2735‑E(A)15‑1‑1941, submitted bay the offence and placed on the file ill appears that the question whether a final notice must issue to the defaulter or not has been ultimately left to the Revenue Officer' s discretion and that it is not considered a necessary formality. These two letters of the old Sind Government have not been adequately summarized in the Standing Instruction No. 10 (A), but they clearly lay down the basis of action by the Revenue Department of the Sind Government. They also follow the broad outlines of Condition No. 4 of the Conditions on which full‑rate grants are made. I, therefore, find that the final notice was not necessary, that the cancellation automatically followed default in the payment of the instilment of December 1946 and that) the petitioner was liable to remokal fine for his continued use of the grant to his advantage from 1947‑48 down to 1953‑

54. His case in regard to the years 1950‑51 to 1953‑54 has been disposed of by the Revenue authorities on the instructions of the former Revenue Commissioner of Sind dated the 9th July 1953. The Revenue Commissioner found that there had been an "obvious misunderstanding in the case" and, therefore, he directed the Collector to make the fine nominal, slightly higher than the lease money. This was, I think, a big concession granted to him. He now wants the same concession to be given retrospective effect for the years 1947‑48 to 1949‑

50. Of course, there are two extenuating circumstances in his favour. In the first place the order of cancellation, although meant to be effective from Rabi 1947‑48 was actually given effect to in the village papers in 1950, so that he was confronted with an accumulated fine of Rs. 30,000 or three years. This was not fair. In the second place, the crucial default and the automatic cancellation actually took place in the lifetime of his father. When the petitioner succeeded, he found himself in financial difficulties so that the estate passed under the control of the Encumbered Estates Department. I do not quite know how the matter of the grant was dealt the latter Department. At the same time, it is obvious that the petitioner by leasing out the land obtained sufficient financial benefit from the grant. The concession granted by the Revenue Commissioner for the last three years was rather on the high side. Taking all circumstances into consideration I think the ends of justice would be met by treating the three offences as a first offence and levying the fine for the three years each at one and a half times the lease money. K. M. A. Petition partly accepted.