P L D 1959 W (PLP)

2. In 1938 the petitioners were allotted some land in Tukra No. 55 of Toba Tek Singh tehsil on well‑sinking conditions, published in PuRiab Government Notification No. 924‑C, dated 9‑3‑34 wrongly mentioned as No. 1255‑C, dated 3‑4‑34, in the order of the Additional Commissioner. The allottees took posses sion on 19‑1‑

38. In the register of Takmil Sharait for Kharif, 1954, the Field Kanungo of the Circle reported on 9‑12‑54 that the petitioners were absent from the Chak, had not constructed the residential Ihata nor cultivated the land, and had not planted any tree. This report was verified by the Colony Naib Tehsildar on 21‑12‑

54. On 3‑1‑55 the Collector issued a show‑cause notice to the petitioners under section 24 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act, directing that the breach be rectified and the petitioners should appear before the Collector on 21‑2‑55 at Multan in order to prove that the conditions had been fulfilled, failing which the land in question would be resumed or a fine imposed. It is important to note that the conditions, the breach of which was under consideration, were not mentioned in the show‑cause notice. The notice was issued from the Collector's office on 6‑1‑55 and reached the Field Kanungo on 7‑1‑55 who asked the Patwari to report. On 30‑1‑55 the Patwari reported as follows :‑‑ "The petitioners are absent. No chah is Abad. (presumably he meant completed) and there are no tenants who could be informed." This report was endorsed by the Field Kanungo and the Colony Naib Tehsildar on 1‑2‑55 and 2‑2‑55 respectively. It was put up before the Collector on 21‑2‑55 and the Collector passed the order, of resumption in vernacular, which can be translated as follows :‑ "Called. None present. The notice under section 24 has since been received back. The tenants of the Attiadar has been personally served which shows that the Attiadar is absent." The grant is consequently resumed."

3. Report dated 30‑1‑55 of the Patwari shows that no well had been completed, while report dated 9‑12-54 of the Field Kanungo and report dated 21‑12‑54 of the Colony Naib Tehsildar show that the well was ready but no irrigation had been done from it. It would thus appear that the reports are contradictory and also that the notice had not been properly served.

4. The previous rulings on the subject would show that such cases have been treated leniently. In P L D 1950, Pb. Rev. 171 (1) it was held that "although technically residence is essential, yet circumstances did not warrant that confiscation of the whole grant. I think a fine of Rs. 100 will meet the ends of the case, otherwise I accept the application and restore the square to the applicant on his paying Rs. 100.

5. In P L D (Rev.) 1955, Pb. 35, it was field that "Where opportunity to rectify was not given and the grant of land on tree planting conditions was resumed, the order of resumption was se aside and grantee given six months in which to rectify his omission to plant and maintain the requisite number of trees even though he had not carried out the conditions of the grant as to planting of trees for about thirty years." In view of these rulings and the policy described above, it will not be proper to resume the grant, particularly when the notice has not been properly served.

6. The result is that the petition is allowed and the order resuming the grant is set aside.

7. If the petitioners do not fulfil the conditions within a reasonable time, it will be open to the Collector to take up the matter again. A.H. Petition allowed.