P L D (PLP)

2. The brief facts are that lot No. 18 measuring 34 acres, I kanal and 17 marlas situated in Chak No. 4/4‑L, Tehsil Shorkot, district Jhang, was allotted to Mir Ahmad under Bara Reclama tion Scheme for 8 years commencing from Kharif 1962. It is alleged that the petitioner who was employed as a Driver with a Foreigner working in the F. A. O. under the auspices of U. N. O. later left for Bangkok in 1965 with that officer. It is also alleged that the allotment bad actually been secured benami in the name of Mir Ahmad by Muhammad Bakhsh. Canal Patwari of the Halqa and Management of this lot was done by Allah Bakhsh, uncle and father‑in‑law of Muhammad Bakhsh, Canal Patwari. Later in 1971 one Muhammad son of Mathal who was also interested in this lot made an application to the Additional Commissioner (Revenue) Sargodha that his name had intentionally been omitted as claimant for this lot in 1961, that the lot was in occupation of Allah Bakhsh of Muzaffargarh at the instance of Muhammad Bakhsh, Canal Patwari and that it was a benami allotment. The Additional Commissioner vide his order dated 8‑8‑1970 referred the matter to the District Collector for investigation.

3. The District Collector summoned all concerned including Mir Ahmad who was represented by his relative. Lt. Commander Pir Muhammad, an officer in the Pakistan Navy. The District Collector took evidence of the Patwari, Lt. Commander Pir Muhammad, relative of Mir Ahmad, Allah Bakhsh who was managing the land, Ali Muhammad, Lambardar of Chak No. 267, Hassan Din, Member, Union Council, Chak No. 3/4‑L etc. After taking all the relevant evidence, the District Collector came to the conclusion that Mir Ahmad, allottee, whose residence in Bangkok was accepted, was not residing in the Chak, that he had not sunk the well, that only 1/4th to 1/5th of the land had been developed and as all these were serious violations of the terms and conditions of the allotment, the District Collector vide his order dated 13‑1‑1971 resumed the lot to the State. Mir Ahmad went up in appeal against this order before the Commissioner who vide his order dated 31‑3‑1971 rejected the appeal on the same grounds of violation of the conditions, holding that since it was a misuse of Government land, there was no justification for allowing Mir Ahmad to continue with the lot.

4. This lot was latterly included in the pool for 15 years. Lease Scheme and lets were drawn for its allotment in which Riaz Hussain, Ahmad and Noor on one side arid Muhammad son of Mathal who had made the petition before the Additional Commissioner, on the other side, along with others, took part. The lot was drawn in favour of Riaz Hussain, Noor and Ahmad who were consequently allotted this disputed land under the 15 years Lease Scheme. In the meantime Mir Ahmad went up in revision before my learned predecessor who vide his order dated 26‑5‑1971 ordered status quo to be maintained.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was allotted the disputed land in 1962 and has since fulfilled all the conditions. He sunk well in Killa No. 13, square No. 37 and has also reclaimed the land up to 85% till January 1970. That till 1968 he also resided in the Chak but later went to Bangkok as a Driver. The learned counsel argued that the resumption could only be ordered on the report of the Reclamation Officer but no such report was ever made against him and that the Collector also did not issue any notice under section 24 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act, before resuming the lot.

6. Against the above, Mr. Muhammad Bakhsh Colony Clerk who appeared on behalf of the Collector stated that an enquiry was held on the remand order dated 8‑8‑1970 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Revenue) In appeal Muhammad v. Mir Ahmad Khan. The District Collector recorded the state ments of Allah Bakhsh of Chak No. 4/4‑L, Munshi Abdul Karim Patwari, Lt. Commander Pir Muhammad, Ali Muhammad Lambardar. Mukhtar Khan Lambardar and Hassan Din, Member, Union Council of Chak No. 3/4‑L and the Collector came to the conclusion that Mir Ahmad, petitioner, was not residing in the Chak; that he failed to sink a well and that the lot was developed only to the extent of 1/4th or 1/5th of the lot. Mr. Muhammad Bakhsh, Colony Clerk, quoted Notifica tion No. 5725/63‑IV/4326‑C(G)II, dated 5‑2‑1963 according to which the allottee is required to reside permanently in the estate within one month of the date of allotment order. He also cited instructions contained in letter No. 1101‑C dated 23‑3‑1950 in which it has been directed that is case of an allotment not exceeding 2 rectangle the well shall be sunk before the end of the first year of allotment. He also stated that the land has not been reclaimed up to 80% which is the prescribed limit and under clause 23 of the Bara Scheme the Government is entitled to resume the land for breach of conditions. Muhammad Bakhsh Colony Clerk further stated that Lt.‑Commander fir Muhammad cousin of Mir Ahmad appeared before the Deputy Commissioner and that the tenancy being a scheduled tenancy under section 4 of the Coloniza tion of Government Lands Act 1912, issue of a notice under section 24 of the said Act was not necessary.

7. The learned counsel for Riaz Hussain and Ahmad argued that his clients have been allotted the disputed land under 15 years lease scheme. The tenancy has been rightly resumed for breach of conditions and no interference is called for in the concurrent findings of Collector and the Commissioner. The learned counsel further argued that allotment in the name of Mir Ahmad petitioner was made in 1962 and Muhammad respondent having not gone in appeal against that order cannot agitate the matter at this stage.

8. The learned counsel for Muhammad respondent argued that Muhammad had applied for the allotment of this land in 1961 but the name of Muhammad was intentionally omitted. He filed an appeal but it was filed in his absence. He again approached the Additional Commissioner and his appeal was restored and disposed of on 8‑8‑1970 and the Collector was directed to hold an enquiry and redress the grievance of the petitioner. The learned counsel contended that the land having been resumed as a result of enquiry conducted on the basis of remand order dated 8‑8‑1970 on an appeal filed by Muhammad respondent he is entitled to get this land. The learned counsel for Riaz Hussain and Ahmad stated that Muhammad had been allotted another lot of state land under 15 years lease scheme but that he never took its possession.

9. I have examined the arguments of the learned counsel for Mir Ahmad petitioner, Muhammad, respondent and Riaz Hussain and Ahmad, successful allottees of this lot under 15 years lease scheme who have been allowed to be pleaded as a party in the case. I have also heard Allah Ditta, Attorney of Mir Ahmad, Muhammad, respondent, whose statements have also been recorded as well as seen the records of Patwari who was present during the hearing and whose statement was also recorded.

10. According to the records with the Patwari and as per his statement, the area in question has never been cultivated by allottee Mir Ahmad, petitioner before me, but has been cultivated by different persons. According to section 19 of the Bara Reclamation Scheme, sub‑letting and assigning of the lot was not permitted. Till 1965 this area remained uncultivated, from Rabi 1965 to Kharif 1967. one Allah Diya cultivated it; from Rabi 1968 to Kharif 1968 a part of it was cultivated by Nur Din from Kharif 1968 to Rabi 1971, Allah Bakhsh cultivated it. On 13‑1‑1971 the land was resumed to the state. According to the statement off' Allah Ditta Attorney of Mir Ahmad, a well was sunk in this lot 3‑4 years ago from the income of cultivation of this land. This well worked well only for two years and for more than a year has been out of use. Water for cultivation for this land was being secured from the tube-well of Muhammad Bakhsh at the rate of Rs. 4 per hour for the last year and a half. Allah Ditta, Attorney claims, to have developed this land since 1965 and has also claimed that there is a "KHUFIA WAADA" between him and Mir Ahmad since 1965 that after proprietary rights have been given to Mir Ahmad for this land, Allah Ditta will secure half the share of proprietary rights in this land Allah Ditta, Attorney, also accepts that only a fraction of this lot is being and has been cultivated because of shortage of water. Allah Ditta has also produced the Power of Attorney in original which is dated 4‑1‑1971 executed in the Pakistan Embassy, Bangkok, by Mir Ahmad, in favour of Allah Ditta, which shows that Allah Ditta has been given the Power of Attorney in order to pursue the case for Mir Ahmad, petitioner, in the different Courts after the District Collector had already taken proceedings for resump tion of the land for which Allah Bakhsh, tenant, Lt. Commander Pir Muhammad, cousin of Mir Ahmad and Patwari of the halqa had been examined by him on 4‑11‑1970 and tae other persons examined by the District Collector on 22‑12‑1970. It also appears from the letters dated 10‑10‑1970 and 21‑11‑1970 addressed by Mir Ahmad to Lt. Commander Pir Muhammad on the files of the District Collector that Mir Ahmad was fully aware of the proceedings of resumption of the land and was trying to find out a suitable person to whom Power of Attorney could be granted, The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that Mir Ahmad had no intimation about the resumption proceedings and that these proceedings were ex parte is therefore devoid of facts and reality. It is in fact Mir Ahmad who committed the breach of the condition by being permanently absent from the lot and having appointed an Attorney only on 4‑1‑1971 when an appeal had to be filed before the Commissioner against the order of resumption by the District Collector.

11. As regards the other point that report from the Reclamation Officer had not been obtained, the facts of the case would indicate that Reclamation Officer miserably failed in discharging his own duties when do spite of the permanent absence of Mir Ahmad, allottee, no well having been sunk on the lot and the required area not being reclaimed, he made no report on his own which was obviously his duty to make if he was to perform properly his duties in connection with the reclamation of State land. It, however, appears from the statement of the Revenue Patwari before me that Muhammad Bakhsh, Canal Patwari of the area who is alleged to have been Instrumental in the securing of this lot in favour of Mir Ahmad was incharge of this hatqa till 1970. It is, therefore, obvious that when the Canal Patwari concerned of the halqa himself was interested in the continuance of this lot in favour of Mir Ahmad, he could not have initiated a report about the breach of conditions for submission to the Reclamation Officer on which Reclamation Officer could have processed the case further. It is also obvious that in a case like this where the Reclamation Officer has failed to discharge his duties, the District Collector cannot fail to discharge his duties when the breaches of conditions are brought to his notice and are established to have been committed after necessary record and evidence has been examined in this regard. No injustice has, therefore, in these circumstances, been done against Mir Ahmad, petitioner, and the District Collector was fully justified in having taken cognizance of the breach of conditions, which having been established after necessary proceedings, to have resumed the lot in favour of the State.

12. In view of the above facts and circumstances I do not see any justification for interfering Min the concurrent findings of the District Collector and the Commissioner in respect of the, resumption of the land from Mir Ahmad, petitioner allottee and therefore reject his petition.

13. As regards the claim of Muhammad son of Mathal, respondent, in this case, I have examined his yaw. Although I have every sympathy with him for his having pursued this matter and having brought to the notice of the Additional Commissioner breaches of conditions committed by Mir Ahmad, allottee, which have led to the resumption of this lot, it would be difficult to order at this stage that this lot may be allotted to him for the simple reason that the Bara Reclamation Scheme is no longer in force and has long been closed. Muhammad had gone in appeal before the Commissioner but his appeal was dismissed in default as early as 1961. By 1970 when he approached the Additional Commissioner with the complaint against Mir Ahmad, allottee, the Bara Scheme had already been closed. The Scheme in force at the relevant time was 15 years lease scheme and Muhammad, respondent's name was also included for the drawing of lottery for this lot but he did not succeed. Instead, it is Riaz Hussain, Ahmad and Noor who were successful in drawing the lottery for this land. Muhammad is on record before me to have been successful in drawing a lottery for some other lot but since he did not like this land, he did not take its possession. Nothing can, therefore, be done at this stage in favour of Muhammad, respondent in respect of the land in dispute.

14. Parties may be informed and orders issued accordingly. Order accordingly.