P L D 1972 Rev (PLP)

Allotment-‑Pedigree Livestock Breeding Scheme-‑Lambardar with 20 years in service, qualified to get land under scheme till such time he holds office. This is a revision petition against the order dated 19‑7‑1971 passed by the Additional Commissioner Lahore by which he rejected the appeal of the petitioners regarding allotment of state land situated in Chak No. 371/GB, Tehsil Nankana Sahib District Sheikhupura.

2. Briefly the facts of the case are that Collector Sheikhupura vide his order dated 17‑5‑1971 allotted state land measuring 121 acres situated in Chak No. 371/GB Tehsil Nankana Sahib District Sheikhupura to the respondent under the Pedigree Livestock Breeding Scheme. The petitioners being aggrieved with this order preferred an appeal to the Additional Commissioner Lahore on the main ground that the disputed area measuring 44 kanals 11 marlas comprising Khasra Nos. 3/2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8/1 square No. 95/108 was in possession of the petitioners since 1969 as it was leased out to them on tender and that they had developed it. The Additional Commissioner held on 19‑7‑1971 that the petitioners were in unauthorised possession of the disputed land and rejected the appeal. The petitioners were however directed to approach the Collector of the district for allotment of some state land under a recent scheme issued by the Board of Revenue for the allotment of state land to landless tenants. Hence this revision petition.

3. I have heard the arguments of the counsels and examined the record. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that Nizam Din the petitioner was in possession of the land in dispute on year to year lease and therefore they had better claim than that of the respondent could not be proved. The state representative states that Sohan the petitioner was successful in annual tender for temporary lease in 1958‑59 for one year only.

4. Extract from jamabandi for the year 1953‑54 shows the possession of Sadiq son of Nizam Din on land in square No. 108 Killa Nos. 1/2, 4 to 7, 8/2, 13/2, 17, 18/2, 23/2 and 24 as unauthorised occupant. Sadiq son of Nizam Din is shown in possession of land measuring 85 kanals 18 marlas in square No. 108 Killa Nos. 3/2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8/2, 13/2, 14, 15, 17, 18/1, 23/1 and 24 from Kharif 1954 to Rabi 1956 in Khasra Girdawari. From Kharif 1956 to Rabi 1958, the possession over this land (85 kanals 18 marlas) is shown of Nizam Din the petitioner and one Abdullah. Khasra Girdawari for Rabi 1969, Kharif 1969 and Rabi 1970 shows the possession on square No. 108/95 Killa Nos. 3/2, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8/1, the area in dispute, of the petitioner Nizam Din as an unauthorised occupant. During Kharif 1970 and Rabi 1971 Sohan petitioner is shown in unauthorised possession of the area in dispute.

5. Copy of Khasra Girdawarl also shows that Parvez Akhtar Lambardar, the respondent was in unauthorised occupation of square No. 68 Killa Nos. 1, 2/1, 9/1, 10/1, 11/1, 11/2, 19/2, 20/1, 21 and 22/1 in the same village from Rabi 1969 to Kharif 1970. On Killa Nos. 11, 11/2, 19/2, 20/1, 21 and 22/1 his illicit possession continued up to Rabi 1971. His brothers are also stated to have been cultivating 105 kanals of land unauthorisedly. It looks that no action was taken against the unauthorized occupants.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners has further contended that under section 16 of the Colonization of Govern ment Lands Act, no action is warranted against the persons who are in possession of the tenancy for more than 3 years; that they have been paying the Government dues regularly and that they are eligible to get land under 15 years lease Scheme. It was further argued that the respondent was a defaulter and the dhal bach has been delivered to one Shamim Farhat Chughtai under the orders dated 29‑6‑1971 of Tehsildar Nankana Sahib.

7. I find from the records produced that the petitioners are out encroachers of state land during the relevant period of Kharif 1959 to Kharif 1970. 15 years lease scheme is not meant for those in unauthorised possession of the state land. The petitioners did not avail the opportunity of that scheme obviously as they were not in authorised possession of the land in dispute during the crucial period from Kharif 1962 to Kharif 1970. Section 16 of the Colony Act is also inapplicable in this case as the petitioners were not deprived of a right in land which never occurred to them They could not be allowed to continue in unauthorised occupation. They were liable to be proceeded against under section 32 of the Colonization of Government Land Act. The respondent is a Lambardar since 20 years and was qualified to get the land under the Pedigree Livestock Breeding Scheme till such time he holds the office and is not removed or dismissed under the provisions of Land Revenue Act. The revision petition is therefore rejected. Parties may be informed accordingly.

9. Action should also be taken against illicit cultivators of square Nos. 108, 68 and other state land stated to have been in unauthorised possession of brothers of Parvez Akhtar Lambardar. The Lambardar should further be proceeded against for breaking the law and setting a bad example to the village community. It should be examined whether he was a suitable person to continue as a Lambardar. Petition rejected.