1987 PLP 1182 (CLC)

R.O.R. No. 1331 of 1986, decided on 8th July, 1986. ‑‑‑S. 164‑‑Five Years' Lease Scheme‑‑Petitioner declared ineligible to obtain proprietary rights of leased out land by Collector on the ground of his not being in self‑cultivating possession thereof‑‑Petitioner's time‑barred appeal rejected by Commissioner‑‑Petitioner's failure to produce any documentary evidence in support of plea that he had been in cultivating possession of such land since specified date, held, would not entitle him to proprietary rights of leased out land‑‑Revision petition being devoid of merit was dismissed in circumstances. Rao Hamid Mukhtar Khan for Petitioner. This is a revision petition against the order of Commissioner, Multan, dated 6‑4‑1986, whereby he dismissed the appeal of the petitioner against the order of District Collector, Multan, dated 3‑9‑1984. The D . C . / Collector had declared the petitioner ineligible to obtain proprietary rights of land leased out to him under 5 years lease scheme.

2. Briefly, land measuring 91 Kanals comprising Rect. No. 1/1 to 12 in Chak No. 55/15‑L, was leased out to the petitioner under 5 years lease scheme from Kharif 1979. He applied for proprietary rights under Notification, dated 20‑4‑1983, but the D.C./Collector rejected the application on the ground that the petitioner was not in self cultivating possession of the land since Rabi, 1980. The petitioner appealed against that order. The Commissioner dismissed the time‑barred appeal. Hence, this revision petition.

3. I have heard the petitioner through his learned counsel who claims that he had not been treated on the same basis as Hussain Bakhsh son of Ghulam Qadir of the same Chak to whom proprietary rights were allowed on 30‑9‑1984, although he was put in possession of the land in Kharif 1980 on Ghair Mumkan land which remained Banjar even in Rabi 1981. In support of his contention he produced a copy of the order and of relevant Khasra Girdawri. It is clear from these documents that proprietary rights were incorrectly allowed to Hussain Bakhsh under Notification, dated 20‑4‑1983. As regards the petitioner he could not produce any documentary evidence in his support that he had been in cultivating possession of the land since before Kharif 1980. The revision petition having no force is rejected. However, it appears that Hussain Bakhsh has been allowed proprietary rights irregularly. It is, therefore, directed that the D.C./Collector, Khanewal should go through the record of Hussain's case and see as to how he was allowed proprietary rights under Notification, dated 20‑4‑1983 and take further proceedings according to provisions of law after giving Hussain Bakhsh due notice to explain his case. A.A./190/R Revision dismissed.