P L D 1972 Rev (PLP)

2. The facts briefly are that the petitioner is a Lambardar 4 Chak No. 173/RB Tehsil and District Sheikhupura. He made an application on 6‑3‑1971 to the Collector Sheikhupura for allotment of state land situated in the same Chak under the pedigree Livestock Breeding Scheme. The Collector after making necessary enquiries allotted him, vide his order dated 11‑5‑1971, state land measuring 7 acres, 5 kanals and 13 marlas comprising Kolas Nos. 17, 18 of square No. 11 and Killas Nos. 7, 8/2, 13/2,14, 15, 17 and 18/2 of square No. 31, situated in Chak No. 173/RB Tehsil and District Sheikhupura. The respondents being aggrieved with this order bled an appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Lahore Division on the ground that they being in possession of the disputed land were entitled to get it under tire 15 years lease Scheme issued by the Government on 24‑4‑1971. They also urged that the petitioner was not entitled to get land under the instructions of the Government pertaining to Pedigree Livestock Breeding grants. The Additional Commissioner, Lahore vide his order dated I9‑7‑1971 accepted the appeal and remanded he case to the Collector and observed:‑ "If it is established that the respondent who is a Lambardar possessed two or more tenancies then the present allotment made in his favour on 11‑5‑1971 under Pedigree Livestock Breeding Scheme may be cancelled and the land may be resumed and put in the pool for allotment to the landless tenants or persons owning less than 4 acres. On the other hand if it is established that the respondent got no other tenancy on State land on 11‑5‑1971 then the present allotment made in his favour under the Pedigree Livestock Breeding Scheme may be maintained.

3. Sane' Ullah (Lambardar) petitioner has now challenged this order before the Board of Revenue with his present revision petition.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondents. I have heard Mukhtar Ahmad and Mushtaq Ahmad respondents as well and recorded their statements.

5. When they appealed before the Commissioner, the respondents had taken up the plea that as they were in cultivating possession of the land, the same may be allotted to them 9n terms of Government Notification No. 1622‑71/1205 C. L. I. dated 24‑4‑1971 under the 15 years lease Scheme. In the state ment before me they have acknowledged that as the land in dispute adjoin their proprietary land they occupied the land (in dispute) from Kharif 1970. Before that the land was being cultivated unauthorisedly by one Nazir Ahmad from Kharif 1968 to Rabi 1970. They have also acknowledged that an illicit cultivation file has been started against them and has also been started against Nazir. They have not been able to produce any receipt for payment of any rent to the Government for the land in dispute. Under the 15 years Lease Scheme the prescribed harvests which can entitle any self‑cultivator for consideration under the Scheme are Kharif 1969 to Kharif 1970. In the present case the respondents are not entitled to be considered for allotment under the 15 years lease Scheme as self‑cultivator because firstly they were not cultivating the land during the prescribed harvests of Kharif 1969 to Kharif 1970 and were even in Kharif 1970, unauthorised occupants.

6. The respondents have now taken up the plea before me that as they were owners of less than 4 acres of land, their total proprietary holding being 6 acres between 4 brothers and 3 sisters, they should be considered eligible for allotment as owners of less than 4 acres and the land should be put under the common pool for allotment to them under the lottery system. The learned counsel for Sana Ullah petitioner objects to the introduc tion of a new ground for consideration when in their appeal they had not taken up this plea.

7. The other main ground of the respondents has been that as Sana Ullah petitioner Lambardar held other tenancies from the Government, he could not under the notification of the Govern ment No. 1838‑71/1721 C. V. dated 12‑5‑1971 get this allotment under the Pedigree Livestock Breeding Scheme. The respondents have not produced any proof to substantiate this allegation against Sana Ullah Lambardar. On the other hand according to the statement of Patwari and Colony Clerk recorded before me, Sana Ullah, who is a hereditary Lambardar only owns 144 kanals. His father Sarbuland Lambardar was given a Lambar dari square long time ago and proprietary rights were conferred on Sarbuland on 28‑12‑1957, the square has since been divided among the heirs of SarBuland deceased. According to the Patwari the Lambardar does not have any tenancy under the Government except the present one under the Pedigree Livestock Breeding Scheme. This point of the respondents against Sana Ullah Lambardar petitioner is therefore also not established. On the other hand according to Government Memo. No. 8245‑69/ 556 CV, dated 13‑2‑70 the ban on the allotment of Lambardari squares under the Pedigree Livestock Breeding Scheme to those Lambardars who themselves or whose father/grandfather had got proprietary rights in the Lambardari grant previously held by them, imposed in Memo. No. 27‑56‑53/3090 CGI, dated the 7th September 1963 and Memorandum No. 4485‑64/1953 CGI, dated the 18th June 1964, was withdrawn and the Lambardars of such category were also made eligible to get Lambardari grant under the Pedigree Livestock Breeding Scheme.

8. The learned counsel for Sana Ullah Lambardar petitioner has also pointed out that there is contradiction between the finding of the Additional Commissioner in paragraph 4 of his order dated 19‑7‑1971 and paragraph 6 of the same order. In paragraph 4 of the order, the Additional Commissioner had held that appellants as unauthorised tenants at will cannot be allotted the land under any Scheme while in paragraph 6 he observed "I accept the appeal". This contradiction pointed out by the learned counsel for Sana Ullah petitioner is somewhat correct and seems to have arisen on account of not careful wording of the judgment.

9. The learned counsel for Sana Ullah petitioner has also raised the objection that Mushtaq Ahmad and other respondent's appeal before the Commissioner was defective inasmuch as the area involved was 61 kanals, whereas they had prayed for reversal of the order and for allotment of only 43 kanals. This is however, a purely technical point and does not affect the substance of the case inasmuch the 43 kanals asked for by the respondents was a part of the 61 kanals allotted to Sana Ullah petitioner.

10. The learned counsel for Mushtaq Ahmad and other respondents has in the course of arguments contended that Sana Ullah owed Rs. 7,000 to Government. The learned counsel for Sana Ullah has, on the other hand, rebutted, arguing that no Government dues are payable and outstanding against Sana Ullah petitioner. If there are any dues, they would be against the owners and not against Sana Ullah. He has also urged that there are no conditions in the allotment of land under Pedigree Livestock Breeding Scheme concerning Government dues etc. I agree that this is a far‑fetched point. In any case there are specific provisions available under the Land Revenue Act and other rules and regulations for removal of a Lambardar for non -performance of his duties and if Sana Ullah Lambardar is removed from his office, the grant under the Pedigree Live stock Breeding Scheme would also automatically stand forfeited to Government.

11. In view of all the above circumstances and reasons I set aside the order of Additional Commissioner (Revenue) dated 19‑7‑1971 and uphold‑ the allotment of state land in dispute in favour of Sana Ullah Lambardar petitioner under the Pedigree Livestock Breeding Scheme. Orders may be issued and parties informed accordingly. Orders accordingly.