1995 PLP 1029 (MLD)

‑‑‑‑Ss. 164 & 53‑‑‑Implementation of decree of Civil Court in Revenue Record‑‑‑Dispute between parties relating to land in question was pending adjudication when parties arrived at compromise with regard to land in question through consent decree of Civil Court‑‑‑Board of Revenue allowed withdrawal of revision petition on the application of both parties, thus allowing implementation of decree of Civil Court‑‑‑Subsequent orders of Collector and the Commissioner whereby they did not allow implementation of Civil Court decree and refusing to grant proprietary rights to petitioners were not warranted by law and same were set aside‑‑‑Collector was directed that proprietary rights be granted to petitioners if they were otherwise eligible. Ch. Muhammad Ashraf and S.M. Javid for Petitioners. This is a revision petition against the order of Commissioner Multan dated 4‑10‑1982, whereby he dismissed the appeal of the petitioners and upheld the order of Deputy Commissioner/Collector, Multan dated 11‑5‑1982. The father had resumed Lot No. 1 measuring 142 acres, 1 Kanal and 3 Marlas situated in Chak No. 114‑15L, Tehsil Khanewal from Abdur Rehman to whom it was allotted under Tube-well Sinking Scheme.

2. Facts of the case are that the disputed land was allotted to one Abdur Rehman in year 1959 under the Tubewell Sinking Scheme. Governor's Inspection Team during course of a scrutiny observed that the allottee had failed to cultivate 50% of the allotted land within 5 years from the commencement of the tenancy, did not deposit rent from Kharif 1966 and that he was a teacher in the Education Department at the time of allotment and was still in service. The Deputy Commissioner/Collector therefore issued him notice under section 24 of the Colony Act and vide his order dated 14‑4‑1969 allowed him to continue the tenancy provided he paid a fine of Rs.

100. Muhammad Siddique, as general attorney of the allottee applied on 23‑12‑1970 for the deposit of the purchase price of the land. The Assistant Commissioner/Collector, Khanewal allowed proprietary rights on 26‑1‑1971, at the rate of Rs. 450 per acre but on the same day the son of the original allottee applied to the Assistant Commissioner/Collector stating that the power of attorney given to Muhammad Siddique had since been cancelled. The AC/Collector therefore, reviewed his orders and rejected the application of Muhammad Siddique on 22‑8‑1972 observing that the allottee had alienated the land in favour of Muhammad Siddique and Ali Ahmad without prior permission of the competent Authority, as required under section 19 of the Colonization of 'Government Lands Act. He also ordered the ejectment of Muhammad Siddique etc, from the land and issued notice under section 24 ibid to the original allottee, Muhammad Siddique etc. filed an appeal before the Additional Commissioner who accepted it on 23‑11‑1972, and remanded the case for a fresh decision. The Assistant Commissioner/Collector heard the parties, and vide this order dated 8‑7‑1974 again resumed the Lot. Two separate appeals were filed before the Commissioner who vide his order dated 26‑9‑1974 set aside the order of Assistant Commissioner/Collector, Khanewal and again remanded the case for fresh decision. Abdur Rehman, the original allottee, filed a revision petition in the Board of Revenue against the order of Additional Commissioner, dated 23‑11‑1972. In the meantime Muhammad Siddique etc. obtained a compromise decree from the Civil Court on 19‑2‑1976 and the revision was withdrawn on 28‑10‑1976. Muhammad Siddique on 26‑10‑1980 applied to the D.C./Collector for permission to deposit the purchase price of the allotted land. The D.C./Collector issued notice to the parties heard them, and on 11‑5‑1981, held that the original allottee had violated condition of the tenancy by entering into an illegal bargain of sale of the allotted land and resumed the land, from the original allottee in favour of State. Aggrieved by this order the petitioners filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Multan who rejected it. Hence this revision petition.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. He contended that Abdur Rehman prior to the allotment of the Lot had agreed to transfer it in favour of the petitioners, and after the allotment of the lot it was the petitioners who were put in possession of land and not Abdul Rehman. Abdur Rehman compromised on 19‑2‑1976 in the Civil Court. Thereafter, the petitioners applied to the A.C./Collector for the deposit of the price but he resumed the land on 11‑5‑1981 without considering the fact that the compromise arrived at between the allottee and the petitioners was recognized by the Board in a judicial decision. It was argued that the Courts below were not competent to ignore the orders of the Board. The objections raised by the Governor's Inspection Team had also since been rectified by the allottee, and a mutation in favour of the petitioners had been sanctioned.

4. I have considered the arguments and perused the record of the case. The A.C./Collector Khanewal vide his order, dated 26‑1‑1971 had allowed P.Rs. to Abdul Rehman allottee who was represented by Siddique his general attorney. Abdul Rehman through his son on the same day i.e. 26‑1‑1971 made application that power of attorney from the name of Muhammad Siddique has since been revoked and he was no more his attorney. However, the parties arrived at compromise in the Civil Court on 19‑2‑1976 and his revision before the M.B.R.(C) was permitted to be withdrawn by him on 28‑10‑1976 which means he allowed the decree of Civil Court dated 19‑2‑1976 to be implemented. Consequently I agree ' that the subsequent orders of the Collector/Commissioner are not correct. The revision petition is accepted and the orders of the D.C./Collector Multan and of the Commissioner are set aside. Transfer may be allowed and proprietary rights granted if the petitioners are otherwise eligible. AA./20‑R Revision accepted.