1994 PLP 549 (CLC)

Ch. Muhammad Ashraf Azim for Petitioner. Muhammad Jaffar Javaid for Respondents Nos.l to

5. This is a revision under rule 13 of the Punjab Land Reforms Rules, 1972, against the order dated (30‑8‑1992) of the Additional Commissioner/Land Commissioner, Multan Division, by which he upheld the order dated (5‑6‑1991) passed by the Deputy Land Commissioner, Vehari.

2. The facts are that land measuring 81 Acres 5 Kanals 18 Marlas in village Sathu, Tehsil Mailsi, District Vehari, resumed under the West Pakistan Land Reforms Regulation, 1959 was available for disposal, under para. 32(4) of the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972. The land was allotted to respondents Nos.l to 5 by order dated 1&9‑1984 of the Deputy Land Commissioner, Vehari. The petitioner, alongwith certain other persons, filed appeal before the Land Commissioner, Multan Division, against the order dated 18‑9‑1984 of the Deputy Land Commissioner, Vehari, but the appeal was withdrawn, because the Deputy Land Commissioner, Vehari, vide his Memorandum No.1298/LR dated 16‑2‑1985, addressed to the Land Commissioner, Multan Division, has moved for permission to review the allotment orders dated 18‑9‑1984 of the Deputy Land Commissioner and the. Land Commissioner vide Memo. No.LR/132‑102/87, dated 31‑10‑1987, had allowed review of the order dated 18‑9‑1984 of the Deputy Land Commissioner. The petitioner, alongwith other persons, filed review application before the Deputy Land Commissioner, Vehari. The Deputy Land Commissioner by his order dated 5‑6‑1991 rejected the review application, on the ground that the power to review under rule 12(1) of the Punjab Land Reforms Rules. 1972 had ended on 30‑4‑1975. Karim Bakhsh etc. filed revision before the Land Commissioner, Multan Division against the order dated 5‑6‑1991 of the Deputy Land Commissioner, but the revision was dismissed by Land Commissioner's order dated 30‑8‑1992 and the order dated 5‑6‑1991 of the Deputy Land Commissioner was upheld. Hence this revision.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant record.

4. I find that the Deputy Land Commissioner, Vehari in his Memorandum No.1298/LR, dated 16‑2‑1985 had pointed out that there was no sitting tenant of the crucial harvest of Kharif 1971 and Rabi 1971‑72, specified in condition No.4(1)(c) of Colonies Department Notification No.8603‑74/5979 CLI, dated 19‑12‑1974, eligible for grant of the resumed land involved in this case; and that while granting the resumed land, landless tenants had to be given performance over small landowners, in accordance with the provisions of condition No.5(2) of the aforesaid notification, but during visit of the Deputy Land Commissioner to Mailsi some tenants of village Sathu had alleged before him that the resumed land had been allotted to such tenants who also owned land and thus landless tenants having prior right to get allotment of resumed land were ignored. The Land Commissioner, Multan Division was informed in Deputy Secretary, Punjab Land Commission's letter No.557/87/630‑LC, dated 22‑6‑1987, that the power of review under Rule 12 of the Punjab Land Reforms Rules, 1972 had ended on 30‑4‑1975; and that the Land Commissioner was empowered to examine in suo motu revision the orders of the Deputy Land Commissioner, Vehari. The Land Commissioner having not exercised his power of suo motu revision, the Deputy Land Commissioner, Vehari rightly held in his order dated 5‑6‑1991 that the Deputy Land Commissioner could not review the orders of his predecessor. The petitioners, Karim Bakhsh etc. having withdrawn their appeal from the Court of the Land Commissioner, their time‑barred revision could not have been entertained by the Land Commissioner. In view of this position, the Land Commissioner by his order dated 30‑8‑1992 rightly rejected the revision of Karim Bakhsh etc. against the order dated 5‑6‑1991 of the Deputy Land Commissioner. Therefore the present revision, which was even otherwise time‑barred, is rejected.

5. However, I find that the Deputy Land Commissioner, Vehari was not justified in granting the resumed land to small landowners unless and until landless tenants of the village were considered and some land was left after satisfying claims of landless tenants of the village. The Deputy Land Commissioner had rightly pointed out in his Memorandum No.1298/LR, dated 16‑2‑1985 that the relevant allotment orders dated 18‑9‑1984 of his predecessor merited interference, in order not to ignore the prior right of landless tenants of the village. Therefore the orders passed by the Land Commissioner, Multan Division, in this case and the orders dated 18‑9‑1984 and 5‑6‑1991 of the Deputy Land Commissioner, Vehari, are set aside, in exercise of my power of suo motu revision under rule 13 of the Punjab Land Reforms Rules, 1972, and the Deputy Land Commissioner, Vehari is directed to grant the resumed land giving preference to landless tenants of the village over small landowners, as provided in condition No.5(2) of Colonies Department Notification No.8603 74/5979‑CLI, dated 19‑12‑1974. H.B.T.1/R Order accordingly.