1994 PLP 2173 (CLC)

‑‑‑‑S. 164‑‑‑Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912), Ss.10 & 30‑‑‑Allotment of land‑‑‑Land in dispute was leased out to lessees for one year‑‑‑After expiry of lease period of one year lessees in possession made repeated requests to deposit further Lagan of land, but their requests were refused on ground that their lease stood expired‑‑‑Such lease could have been extended on short term of two yearly basis, on enhanced rates under Government instructions issued from time to time in that behalf‑‑‑Period after expiry of one year, was treated as holding over possession of lessees, in revision and lease of lessees was restored and extended accordingly, subject to deposit of arrears by lessees who would be at liberty to apply for grant of proprietary rights under new scheme. Syed Muhammad Kalim for Petitioner. This revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 25‑1‑1993, whereby the Commissioner, Bahawalpur Division, rejected the appeal of the petitioner.

2. Brief facts of the case are that Ali Hassan son of Ismail petitioner in ROR No.789/93 was allotted State land measuring 100 Kanals, comprising Khasra Nos. 114/1,2,3,4,5/1, 6 to 12 in Chak No. 11/RB, Tchsial Safdarabad, District Sheikhupura for one year, in 1978. Similarly, Ibad Ali, petitioner in R.O.R. No. 790/93 was allotted 99 Kanals comprising Khasra Nos. 114/12 to 23 and 115/1 for 1977‑78 in the same Chak. Thereafter, both the petitioners applied to deposit Lagan of the said land vide their applications dated 5‑9‑1981 for further period but the Assistant Commissioner/Collector rejected the request of the petitioners vide his order dated 17‑11‑1981 on the ground that lease was for only one year which stood exhausted long before in 1978. The petitioners, however, again approached the Assistant Commissioner for depositing the arrears, but the Assistant Commissioner/Collector refused their request on 11‑5‑1992. Feeling aggrieved by this order of the Assistant Commissioner/Collector, the petitioners prcferred separate appeals before the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Lahore Division, who rejected the same vide his orders dated 25‑‑1‑1993. Hence these two separate revision petitions, filed by the petitioners, which are being disposed of with this single order because the point in issue and facts are the same in both the revisions.

3. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners and have perused the record.

4. In these cases the petitioners were admittedly leased out the land in dispute in 1978‑

79. Thereafter, they made repeated requests to deposit the further Lagan, but their requests were refused by the Assistant Commissioner/Collector on the ground that their lease stood expired in 1978. In fact such leases could have been extended on short term two yearly basis, on the enhanced rates under the Government instructions issued from time to time in this behalf. I, therefore, treat the period after 1978 as holding over possession of the petitioners.

5. In view of the above observations, I accept both the revision petitions, restore the lease in both the cases and extend the leases in the names of the petitioners up to Rabi 1995. They should deposit all the arrears within three months. The orders of the lower Courts are set aside accordingly. The petitioners would be at liberty to apply for the grant of proprietary rights under a new scheme, if and when invoked. . H.B.T./11/R Revisions accepted.