2002 PLP 2594 (YLR)

(b) Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S.10(2)‑‑‑Allotment of land under temporary lease scheme‑‑‑Death of original lessee during subsistence of period of lease‑‑ Possession of an individual coming to cultivate such land after death of original lessee‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Possession of such an individual would not be legal even for the left over period of lease in absence of an, order of transfer of possession, under S.10(2) of the Act. Awan Muhammad Hanif for Petitioners (in R.O.R. No.423 of 1996). G.H. Khan for Petitioner (in Review Petition No.71 of 2000). This case will dispose of Revision Petition No.423 of 1996 titled Muhammad Afzal and others v. The State and another and Review Petition No.71 of 2000 titled Ramzan v. The State in R.O.R. No.254 of 1996 which were rejected by the learned Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue vide his single order dated 2‑9‑1998. The petitioner in Revision Petition No.423 of 1996 invoked the writ jurisdiction of the Honourable High Court from where the case was remanded to this Court for decision afresh. After the remand of the case titled Muhammad Afzal and others v. The State and another, Muhammad Ramzan filed review petition against the order of the learned Member dated 2‑9‑1998. As such, both of the revision and review petitions are being taken up together for decision as the facts and the law points involved in both these petitions are the same.

2. Brief facts of the case are that land measuring 100 Kanals situated in Chak No.423/WB, Tehsil Dunyapur District Lodhran was leased out to Gul Muhammad for a period of 2 years from Kharif, 1980 to Rabi, 1982 on 20‑5‑1980 by the Assistant Commissioner/Sub‑Divisional Collector. The lessee was granted extension from time to time till Rabi, 1991. After the death of Gul Muhammad, his son Muhammad Afzal applied for further extension beyond Rabi 1991 and also sought transfer of possession. The tenancy was transferred to Muhammad Afzal by the Assistant Commissioner/ Collector under the provisions of section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912. He also applied for extension of the lease which was extended upto Kharif 1993 vide order dated 11‑8‑1992 by the Assistant Commissioner/Collector. Both these orders were challenged by Muhammad Ramzan in 2 different appeals before the Additional Commissioner, Multan on the ground that after the death of original lessee, he had taken up cultivation of the land and was entitled to obtain further extension in the period of lease. The appeals were dismissed on 12‑12‑1992 by the Additional Commissioner. He assailed order of the lower Courts before Member (Colonies) in Revision Petitions Nos. 162 of 1993 and 163 of 1993. Both the cases were remanded by the learned Member Board of Revenue by setting aside the order of the Courts below vide order dated 14-3‑1993.

3. The Assistant Commissioner again took up these cases and disposed them of vide his order dated 16‑2‑1994 dismissing the claims of both the parties. These orders were upheld by the Additional Commissioner vide order dated 14‑12‑1995 and the Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue vide order dated 2‑9‑1998 respectively. Arguments of both the petitioners in revision and the review petitions referred to above were heard. Connected record available on‑ the file was also perused. It is not disputed that the lanai involved is located in prohibited limits for which there is no concept of grant or proprietary rights to lessees under the temporary lease schemes. It is also not understandable as to how the Assistant Commissioner exercised the powers under section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 while transferring the tenancy vide order dated. 28‑3‑1992, in favour of the legal heirs of Muhammad Afzal as this power could not be exercised by him under the Act and the instructions issued by the Board of Revenue. No right or title to the continuance of the temporary leases to prohibited area under a temporary lease scheme is available to any of the lessees, as such leases are purely temporary and the land involved is given for a limited period on year to year or on 2 years basis. After Gul Muhammad's death, the land was liable to be resumed and, in any case, it was not liable to be extended beyond the period on lease for which ii stood granted. No right is created in favour of the legal heirs in respect of land under temporary lease scheme in prohibited areas. The legal heirs can claim rights on inheritance of the property for which the original lessee could have had a right to grant of proprietary rights. In this case, there is no concept to grant proprietary rights to even the original allottee for the land located in prohibited limits in accordance with the instructions of the Board of Revenue under temporary lease schemes.

4. The ground that a particular individual came to cultivate the land leased out to a lessee in the midst of the period of lease after the death of the original lessee when no order of transfer of possession had been passed under section 10(4) of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 does not legitimize even the possession of such an individual for the left over period of the lease. As such both the revision petition and review petition are disposed of upholding the Collector's order of resumption of land from the petitioner on account of being an unauthorized occupant straightaway and the legal heir for not being in lawful cultivating possession thereof. The petitioners may, however, take part in auction proceedings as and when the same are held in accordance with the policy and latest instructions of Board of Revenue. S.K.A./46/Rev. Order accordingly.