1993 PLP 1934 (MLD)

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner cultivated land comprising Khasras Nos.36/4‑5‑6‑7‑16‑17‑24‑25 (8 acres) from Kharif 85 to Rabi 198'), which was allotted to respondents as Mueens. A dispute arose between the petitioner and the respondents and the latter moved an application before the Assistant Commissioner/Collector, Arifwala, who proceeded to levy Tawan on the petitioner amounting to Rs.1,05,805 for illicit cultivation. The petitioner challenged the said order before the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Multan Division, Multan, who vide impugned order, dated 29‑5‑1990 rejected the appeal with the following observations:‑‑‑ "He has no legal claim upon the land. The respondents have also violated the law/rules by subletting the allotted land to them in their capacity as Mueens of the village. It is therefore, held that the penal rent levied by the Assistant Commissioner/Collector upon the petitioner for the crops detailed in his order, dated 27‑8‑1989 is totally justified. The total amount of the penal rent should be recovered within one month of this order and also the petitioner be ejected from the suit land with immediate effect. The respondents for their conduct, violative of rules should immediately be removed from their assignments of Mueens. The suit land be immediately taken over by the Tehsildar and fresh applications be called for the appointment of Mueens and the disposal of the land. The appeal stands rejected:" Hence this revision petition under section 164 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967 read with section 7 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner in the written arguments contended that the only question involved in the case is whether the petitioner was in illicit cultivation of the State land from Kharif, 1985 to Rabi 1989 or whether his status was that of tenant/Pattedar under the respondents. The land in question was undisputedly meant for village Mueens and was allotted to them. The petitioner was tenant/Pattedar under the respondents. The relation of the parties as tenant and landlord is also admitted. No doubt the suit land in question was owned by the Provincial Government but it was meant for the use of Mueens of the Chak and was duly allotted to them. Therefore the petitioner was tenant under these landlords and cannot be termed as illicit cultivator of the land. The answering respondents who are the Mueens of the village and were subordinates of the Lambardar tried to eject the petitioner forcibly from the land in question, whereupon the petitioner was constrained to file a civil suit and get the statements recorded to the effect that they would not dispossess the petitioner/plaintiff without due course of law. The petitioner's crops were given on Superdari and he was also illegally penalized by imposing heavy penalty on the instigation of Salah‑ud‑Din Lambardar and in connivance with the Revenue Staff. The respondents had filed an ejectment petition against the petitioner admitting him as their tenant but later it was not prosecuted for the reasons, best known to them. Instead they got, in the instant case, the impugned orders passed against him. It was prayed that the revision petition may be accepted and the impugned order set aside.

3. The learned counsel for the respondents maintained in rebuttal that the penalty of Rs.1,05,805 was imposed on the petitioner as he was in wrongful possession of the State land for three years. Even this assessment was on the lower side and has to be increased in line with the market rent. The petitioner has come up against the concurrent findings on a point of fact in the revision petition before the Board. No question of law was involved and therefore the revision petition was liable to dismissal.

4. I have considered the arguments and perused the case record. In the Khasra Girdawari for Kharif 1983 to Rabi 1989 the suit land in the cultivation column was shown to be in the name of the respondents through the petitioner. Therefore petitioner Bashir Ahmad could not have been a trespasser. He appears to have come in possession of the land with the connivance and the agreement of the respondents. Apparently the land was sublet by these respondents to the petitioner in contravention of section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act. The fact however remains that Bashir Ahmad entered upon the land and cultivated it under the authority given by these Mueens to whom the land stood validly allotted. The respondents do not seem to have challenged these entries anywhere and by implication they have thus not denied the relationship of tenant and landlord between the parties. Therefore the relationship of landlord and tenant within the meaning of section 4(6) and (8) of the Punjab Tenancy Act and section 4(12) of the Land Revenue Act existed between the parties. If any differences had developed subsequently between the respondents and the petitioner the only course of action available to the respondents was to terminate the lease or bring ejectment suit against the petitioner. The provisions of section 33 or 34 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act were not applicable in this case because the land stood duly allotted to the respondents and it was in their possession when sublet to the petitioner by them. Incidentally it appears to be a widespread practice in the Punjab that Mueens do let out such lands to other persons due to their inability to cultivate the land themselves by making large investments in draught animals and agricultural implements. However, if any action was required it should have been taken against the respondents and not against the petitioner under sections 33 and 34 ibid.

5. The upshot of the above discussion is that the revision petition succeeds and the impugned orders are set aside with costs. H.B.T./515/R Revision accepted.