P L D 1966 W (PLP)

(2) Ranjha v. Col. J. J. V. Chunigham (Revision No. 1349 of 1964‑65). (3) Alam Sher v. Col. J. J. V. Chunigham (Revision No. 1350 of 1964‑65). (4) Muhammad Bakhsh v. Col. J. J. V. Chunigham (Revision No. 1351 of 1964‑65). (5) Imam Bakhsh v. Col. J. J. V. Chunigham (Revision No. 1352 6f 1964‑65). (6) Allah Bakhsh v. Col. J. J. V. Chunigham (Revision No. 1353 of 1964‑65). (7) Hayat v. Col. J. J. V, Chunipgham (Revision No. 1354 of 1904‑65), ' These seven revisions have been filed against orders dated the 10th of June 1965, passed by the Additional Commissioner, Sargodha, whereby the revisions preferred by the petitioners were rejected. The facts of all these cases are that the respondents put an application under section 3 of the Punjab Protection and Resto ration of the Tenancy Rights Act XIII of 1950 and section 45 of the Punjab Tenancy Act. The Revenue Officer issued notices under section 3 of the Act of 1950 and further proceedings were taken under that section only. No notices were issued under section 45 nor any proceedings were taken under that section. The Revenue Officer found that the petitioners had not paid batai to the landlord and that the land was not being cultivated according to the directions of the landlords. The petitioners were ordered to be ejected. The petitioners went in appeal to the Collector, who found that the allegations of the respondents about non‑payment of batai and cultivation being not according to the directions of the landlord were not proved. But the ejectment was justified on grounds of self‑cultivation because the land had been reserved by the Government for Stud‑Farm and had been leased to the respondents for the same purpose. The petitioners went in revision to the Additional Commissioner. But these revisions were rejected. Hence these second revisions. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The finding of fact, which has been given by the Revenue Officers below that the land in dispute was leased to the respondents for' the purpose of a Stud‑Farm, cannot be challenged in a second revision. The learned counsel for the petitioners has pointed out that in the first instance there was a wrong use of section 3 of the Punjab Protection and Restoration of Tenancy Rights Act, 1950 and section 45 of the Punjab Tenancy Act. This is borne out by the applications put in by the respondents themselves. On the receipt of the applications, the Revenue Officer, however, proceeded under section 3 of the 1950 Act only. Notices were issued under that section and further proceedings were also taken there under. All the proceedings were taken after the appearance of the petitioners before the Revenue Officer. The respondents were consenting parties to the proceedings having been taken under section 3 of the 1950 Act only. So far as section 45 is concerned, no notice was issued there under. The form of the notice issued under section 3 is different from that which is to be issued under section 45 because subsection (3) of section 45 of the Punjab Tenancy Act among other things makes it mandatory that in the notices it should be specified that if the tenant contends to contest his liability four ejectment, the tenant should institute a suit for that purpose in Revenue Court within two months from the date of the service of the notice. No such specifications were made in the notice actually sent to the petitioners and in spite of the fact that notice under section 3 of the 1950 Act mentioned self‑cultivation as one of the grounds for ejectment, it could not be taken to be a notice under section

45. The conclusion is, therefore, obvious that the Revenue Officer took no action under section 45 of the Punjab Tenancy Act and the respondents were consenting parties thereto. The legal position is, therefore, quite clear as to whether the orders passed by the lower Courts were legally correct or not. Proceedings were taken under section 3 of the Punjab Protection and Restoration of Tenancy Rights Act only. Under this section ejectment is possible only under one of the grounds mentioned therein. The finding of the lower Courts below was in favour of the petitioners so far these grounds were concerned and, therefore, ejectment of the petitioners could not be ordered under this section. In these circumstances, the proceedings from the very beginning suffered from an illegality which cannot be cured. I, therefore, accept all the seven revisions and set aside orders passed by the Revenue Officer, the learned Collector and learned Additional Commissioner. K. M. A. Revisions accepted.