1994 PLP 1150 (MLD)

Brief facts of the case as stated are that State land comprising Khasra Nos.7/1-2-9-12-19 to 23 (measuring 62 Kanals 4 Marlas) in Chak No.103 104/7-R, Tehsil and District Sahiwal was in the alleged cultivating possession of Samanda petitioner in R.O.R. No.550 of 1991. Similarly State land in the same Chak comprising Khasra Nos.8/14-17-18 and 23 to 25 (measuring 48 Kanals) was under the alleged cultivating possession of Muhammad Yaqub petitioner in R.O.R. No.551 of 1991. The said land was resumed from the petitioners by the District Collector, Sahiwal on 6-10-1988. This order was challenged by the petitioners in appeal before the Commissioner, Multan Division, who vide his order, dated 26-7-1989 accepted the appeals and remanded the cases to the District Collector, Sahiwal for fresh decision. In the meanwhile, the Cooperative Farming Society admitted the petitioners as its members on 9-1-1989 and got the rent deposited. The petitioners therefore contended before the District Collector that they being regular members of the Society were eligible for the regularization of their allotments under the instructions issued by the Board of Revenue on 5-2-1985. The District Collector concluded that the petitioners were not eligible for the allotments and the disputed land was therefore again resumed from their names on 11-12-1989. Feeling aggrieved of the said orders the petitioners filed separate appeals before the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), Multan Division, who rejected both the appeals with his single impugned order dated 12-3-1991, upholding the order of the District Collector, Sahiwal dated 11-12-1989. Hence these two separate revision petitions against the aforesaid order under section 164 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967 read with section 7 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912.

2. This single order shall dispose of these two revision petitions because of the identical facts of the cases.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners were members of the Cooperative Society and had been cultivating the suit land since 1948-49. The Chak came under the Cooperative Farming Scheme and some of the land was not distributed to the Members of the Cooperative Society. Such lands were resumed under notification dated 12-2-1976. The lands of both the petitioners were resumed by the Deputy Commissioner on 6-10-1988. Both the petitioners preferred joint appeal and the case was remanded by the Commissioner but the District Collector maintained his earlier order. The petitioners' cases are not hit by the notification dated 12-2-1976 as the list furnished by the Cooperative Society did not include the land in the cultivating possession of the petitioners. The petitioners were made members of the Society in 1989 but making a member of the Society was the duty of the Cooperative Society and not of the petitioners. Some persons who became members of the Society later than the petitioners have been given proprietary rights. The petitioners are duly qualified to obtain proprietary rights in the light of the decision taken in the meeting held in Board of Revenue and circulated vide Board of Revenue's Memo. No.133-85/553-CL-II, dated 26-2-1985. It was prayed that the revision petition may be accepted.

4. It was stated by the representative of the State that unutilized areas of the Cooperative Farming Scheme in various Chaks were resumed. The allotment of land is made by the Cooperative Society subject to approval by the District Collector. In the instant case no such approval was given and no allotment was ever made. The rent was paid by the petitioners after resumption of their land under their occupation.

5. According to the record of the Cooperative Society, Samanda became member in 1989 and paid rent of Rs.4,716 on 10-11-1988. Muhammad Yaqoob became member in 1987 and paid rent amounting to Rs.500 on 24-10-1987.

6. I have considered the arguments and perused the case record. According to the learned counsel of the petitioners they have been in cultivating possession of the suit land since 1948-49 but a period of nearly 40 years taken in becoming the members of the Society has not been satisfactorily explained. The contention of the learned counsel does not carry much weight that it was the duty of. the cooperative society to make them members because it was not only the duty of the Society but it was also the duty of the petitioners in their own interest to have pursued their cases properly as must have been done by a fairly large number of other persons in the same village. Secondly both the cases also suffer from a glaring defect that no allotment was ever made in their favour and no approval of such allotment was ever granted by the District Collector. This is corroborated by the fact that the petitioners never paid any rent to the Society till 1987 (Yaqoob) and 1988 (Samanda). Had they been allottees/occupiers of land, as claimed by them, then the Society would have taken steps to recover the rent/arrears etc., at some stage during the long period of more than 40 years. Thirdly the benefit of the decision taken in the meeting held in the Board of Revenue on 5-2-1985 cannot be given to the petitioners because they were neither members of the Cooperative Society nor were made any valid allotments as such. The relevant portion of the decision is reproduced hereunder:

"Minutes of the meeting held on 5-2-1985 at 2-00 p.m. in the room of Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore. 6.

Decisions.=

(i) Those members to whom the Societies had made allotments since the year 1961, they should be considered as regular lessees even if they have not been regularized by the respective Collectors provided they are in continuous cultivating possession since the date of allotment by the Societies and fulfil the conditions enumerated in para. 5(ii) (a) to (d) ante. Their leases be regularized up to Rabi, 1985 on payment of rent at the rate of 10 times the land revenue.

The relevant portion of para. 5 follows: 5.

(ii)

(a) They should be self-cultivators. (b) They should be bona fide residents of the Chak. (c) They should be owners of not more than four acres of land. (d) They had been admitted as members of the Society according to its by-laws."

7. The upshot of the foregoing discussion is that both the revision petitions lack force and are accordingly dismissed with costs. AA./5/R Revision dismissed.