P L D 1962 W (PLP)

(i) Each case will be duly scrutinized, to ensure that it fulfils the conditions necessary for the transfer of proprietary rights. Proprietary right will be allowed to the existing lessees in the older colonies. (ii) Only, those lessees will be eligible to purchase proprietary rights who actually cultivate the land themselves and not those who are merely shown as khud kashi in the Girdawari Registers. Cultivating the land and through the members of his family will be considered as self cultivation. But cultivation by hired labour be excluded from the terms of eligibility. (iii) Persons owning more than 25 acres of irrigated of 50 acres of un‑irrigated land shall be excluded from being; eligible to acquire proprietary rights under this Scheme. (iv) Option to purchase shall be exercised only after the expiry of three years from the date of commencement of the tenancy and not earlier. (v) The lessees shall be entitled to acquire proprietary rights provided 90 per cent of the land has been developed to the satisfaction of the Collector and he has fulfilled the other conditions of the lease satisfactorily. I have cited these here since these revisions and counter‑revisions are really being pursued because tenants under the Scheme hay;, become eligible for the grant of proprietary rights. I will deal with the merits of Dil Muhammad and Abdul Aziz's cases first, since if they are field to be entitled to the allotment, the Collector's review order will be upheld and Muhammad Rashid, if he is found to be entitled, will have to be accommodated elsewhere. Dil Muhammad's case: ‑ The 31 kanals in dispute were allotted to him in September 1947, when he was an infant only 5 years old and as such was ineligible for the grant. He was, therefore, 17 years old at the time of the Collector's review order dated 18‑12‑1939, in his favour and, therefore, a minor. The Additional Commissioner's order shows that his father also has an allotment of 8 acres, which would make him doubly ineligible. In actual fact, however, his father has 50 kanals, 14 marlas. Measuring Dil Muhammad's entitlement on the terms cited above, it must be remembered that Dil Muhammad has never been a self‑cultivator, as is clear from the Khasra Girdawaris in respect of the 4 field numbers. He, however claims that the members of his family have been cultivating for him during his minority and that this should be presumed to be self cultivation within the meaning of con dition (ii) above. There is sonic force in this plea. There can, how ever, be no doubt that Dil Muhammad's family have been committ ing a fraud on the Scheme by obtaining these 31 kanals in favour of an infant. At most his father could have obtained one acre more on account of the fact that Dil Muhammad was his minor son. The provisions of section 16 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act do not apply to these annual leases. In my opinion Dil Muhammad has no legitimate right to the allotment. His revision petition, is therefore, rejected. Abdul Aziz's case: ‑‑ It has been established that Abdul Aziz owns 26 kanals of land. He is, therefore, ineligible by virtue of para. 2(c) (i) of the 1958 Scheme, which disqualifies an owner or allottee of 3 acres or more of agricultural land under the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme. His revision petition has no merit and is also rejected. Muhammad Rashid's case: ‑ I have carefully considered whether Muhammad Rashid can at all be entitled to benefit under this scheme. It is true that he obtained a certificate that he was ejected in 1957‑58, and was initially allotted land on 10‑9‑1959, on the basis of his application dated 24‑6‑1958. The terms of Memorandum No. 1248‑59/4437‑C (G), dated 5th September, 1959, do not appear to cover the case of a person who was ejected before 30th June 1958, but had not been allotted land under the Scheme upto then. Even if this difficulty is surmounted, the facts are that within 2 months of the allotment and before possession could be given to him, the Collector reviewed the previous orders of allotment in his favour, cancelled them and directed that he be accommodated elsewhere. The fact that he has not applied for alternative land to accommodate him is significant. Another important feature of his case is that the Collector completely ignored the important Memorandum No. 3413‑58/3234‑C (G), dated 21st June, 1958, from the Secretary (Colonies) to all Deputy Commissioners in the former Punjab Province etc. in which it was laid down that in order to prevent the wide‑spread abuse of tenants obtaining ejectment orders deliberately and in collusion with the land‑owners, the following questions 14 and 15 be added in the memo. for ejected tenants "

14. Was the ejectment order against the tenant or tenants passed ex parte ?

15. Did the tenant or tenants contest ejectment, and if so, on what grounds ?" It was pointed out that the replies to these two questions will indicate whether or not the ejectment was collusive if the Colony; Revenue Assistant is satisfied that the ejectment was collusive, the tenant should be considered ineligible for allotment of land under the 1958 Scheme. I questioned Muhammad Rashid on this aspect of the case. He stated before me that he was ejected from 2 acres of land on the ground that it was required for self- cultivation by the landlord. He has, however, admitted before me that after his ejectment, the land has not been brought under self‑cultivation, but has been given to other tenants. I have no doubt in my mind that Muhammad Rashid's case is one of collusive ejectments in fraud of the Scheme, which was assuming scandalous proportions at the time and which led to the aforementioned directives from the Board of Revenue. I do not for a moment believe that landlords would eject from the 2 acres only for purpose of self‑cultivation and that after the ejected tenant had obtained his certificate of being an ejected tenant, he would not take the land over to bring it under self‑cultivation but would give it to some one else. In these circumstances and since even the initial allotment order in Muhammad Rashid's favour, which the Collector had promptly reviewed and set aside, is subsequent to these instructions, I must hold that no benefit can accrue to Muhammad Rashid from the certificate of ejectment, which I find was obtained by him collusively. His revision petition also has no force and is dismissed. In the result, therefore, the land reverts back to the State. The orders of the Collector and the Commissioner in favour of all these candidates are set aside. The Collector can make use of it for some suitable purpose, preferably by inclusion in some deficient Pedigreed Livestock Scheme plot of below 12J acres or in providing accommodation to tenants under the 1958 Scheme, whose lands have been included in some Pedigreed Live stock lots. K. M. A. Petition dismissed.