2000 PLP 755 (MLD)

Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Ss. 10, 24 & 30‑‑‑West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967), S.164‑‑‑Allotment of land‑‑‑Grant of proprietary rights‑‑‑Resumption of land‑‑‑Revision‑‑‑Land in dispute was given on lease to petitioner under Five Years Temporary Cultivation Scheme and he was declared eligible for grant of proprietary rights‑‑‑Petitioner deposited nine instalments of price of land, but failed to deposit last instalment due to his absence from country‑‑ Allotment of petitioner was cancelled and land was resumed on account of non‑cultivation of land due to his absence from country‑‑‑Land of petitioner was resumed without serving him with notice under S.24 of Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Scheme whereunder land was leased out to petitioner did not provide for any penalty or initiation of any proceedings for resumption of land after grant of proprietary rights if lessee was absent from allotted land or failed to cultivate same‑‑‑Orders resuming land of petitioner, being not tenable under law, were set aside and petitioner was allowed to pay last instalment of price of land. Muhammad Mohsin for Petitioner. Facts of the case as drawn from record and pleadings of learned counsel for the petitioners are that land measuring, 100 Kanals comprising Lot No. 117 (old 112), Khasra Nos. 275/1 to 9 and 10/2 Gharbi, 29/1/1, 2/1 and 10, situated in Rakh Tibba, Tehsil Kot Addu was given on lease to the petitioner under 5 years temporary cultivation scheme on 19th of July, 1975. On the application submitted by him A.C./Collector declared him eligible for grant of proprietary rights vide order, dated 25th of June, 1980 under the notification of 3rd September, 1979. Sher Muhammad deposited 9 instalments of the price of the land. On his failure in payment of the last instalment, a notice was issued to him whereupon it revealed that he was absent from the Revenue estate and had gone to Saudi Arbia. Settlement Officer/Collector Layah allotted this lot, without resumption by due process of law, to one Abdul Aziz. A.C./Collector vide bas order, dated 17‑12‑1989 cancelled the allotment on account of non‑cultivation of the land and absence of Sher Muhammad from the Revenue estate. This order was set aside in appeal and the case was remanded to A.C /Collector for a fresh decision. Vide his order, dated 2‑9‑1996, A.C./Collector again cancelled the allotment made in the name of Sher Muhammad as well as Abdul Aziz and resumed the subject land in favour of the State. Sher Muhammad then filed an appeal before Commissioner, D.G. Khan Division which was dismissed on 7th of November, 1996. The present revision petition is directed against this order of Commissioner

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that after declaration by A.C./Collector of the eligibility of Sher Muhammad to obtain proprietary rights of the subject land, it was not open for A.C./Collector to cancel the allotment/order of grant of proprietary rights without issuing notice under section 24 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912. It is also his averment that in the notification of 1979, there is no mention that ,after grant of proprietary rights, the lease can be resumed owing to absence of the lessee‑from the allotted land. Referring to para. 10 sub‑para. (b) of notification, dated 3rd of September, 1979, he submitted that to case of default of payment of any instalment, panel interest at the rate of five per cent is chargeable on the amount overdue for the period of default over and above the amount of simple interest. It is contended that nonpayment of last instalment was rectifiable breach and section 24 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 provides for condonation of such lapse.

3. I have gone through the record. It is borne out from it that Sher Muhammad was not served any notice under section 24 of Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 for any alleged breach of terms of conditions of the lease. Scheme of 3rd September, 1979 does not provide for any penalty or initiation of any proceedings for resumption of land after grant of proprietary rights if the lessee is absent from the allotted land or fails to cultivate it. In this view of the matter, I find that the orders of Commissioner, dated 7‑11‑1996 and A.C./Collector, dated 2‑9‑1996 are not tenable under the law. Both the orders are set aside and the lessee is allowed to pay the last instalment in accordance with para.10 of the scheme of 3rd September., 1979 H.B.T./5‑P(Rev.) Order accordingly.