P L D 1962 W (PLP)

This is a revision against Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Lahore's order, dated 12‑9‑1961 whereby he dismissed Allah Rakha son of Fateli Din, petitioner's appeal for the allotment of five Killas of square No. 73, Chak No. 13 R. S. Dhaban Singh thereby confirming Collector, Sheikhupura's order, dated 24‑8‑1961 canceling his allotment and including the area in Pedigree Livestock Grant. The facts are that one Allah Rakha son of Maula Bakhsh is shown as cultivating Killas Nos. 10, 11, 12, 20, 21, and 22 of Lambardari square No. 73 at six times the land revenue, as a former tenant, as also Killa No. 19, although this latter is shown as allotted to Abdul Ghafoor, refugee from Kharif 1949 to Rabi 1952, except that in 1951‑52 Killa No. 19 is shown in his (Allah Rakha son of Maula Bakhsh) cultivation without payment of any rent `Ba wajah La-ilmi (on account of ignorance), The entry in the Khasra Girdawari in the next harvest in respect of Killa No. 19 is then altered to Allah Rakha and Shah Muhammad sons of Maula Bakhsh, allottees. Apart from interlopment in respect of these harvests by Jamil Khan, Rajput refugee, who appears, Mr. G. M. D. Jeelani, Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner (Land), Sheikhupura's order, dated 9‑I‑1956, to have attempted to collar this Government land under the impression that it was evacuee property, which allotment was cancelled by the Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner. The cultivating tenancy continued with Allah Rakha and Shah Muhammad sons of Maula Bakhsh on payment of reduced rent at three times the land revenue upto Kharif 1956 for the entire area of 7 Killas. It appears that Allah Rakha died round about that time and from Rabi 1957 Muhammad Hussain and Allah Rakha sons of hatch Din are shown as tenants in their place. This entry conti nued till Kharif 1957 and Rabi 1958 for all the land except Killa No. 22, which is shown in the cultivating tenancy of Ghulam Rasul son of Hayat, who retrained cultivating this Killa for Kharif 1958, but thereafter Muhammad Hussain (presumably son of Fateh Din alone is shown as cultivating for Rabi 1959, and Kharif 1959. Moreover, cultivation in Killa No. 20 and 21 is verified in Rabi 1959 with Ghulam Rasul son of Allah Rakha as cultivating the Killas Nos. 20 and 21 on payment of half Batai ba shara note No. 6, (a certified copy of which has not been produced), and it is not known to whom that half Batai rent was being paid. 1 n Rabi 1960 the entries are again changed and this time the entire 7 acres are shown under the tenancy of Hakim Bibi widow of Allah Rakha through Muhammad Hussain and Allah Rakha sons of Fateh Din in forcible cultivation (Jabran kasht). This state of affairs is shown upto Rabi

61. In Kharif 1961, however, Allah Rakha and Muhammad Hussain sons of Fateh Din are shown as tenants paying three times the land revenue. There are numerous cuttings and suspicious interpolations evident even from the attested copies filed in this appeal. This unsatisfactory state of affairs was brought out in the office note on the application, dated 9‑6‑1961, from Syed Nazir Hussain Naqvi, Mandi Dhaban Singh in which it was brought out that Allah Rakha son of Fateh Din was in lawful possession as Allah Rakha son of Maula Bakhsh had died 8 years ago and the Patwari had mistakenly shown Allah Rakha son of Maula Bakhsh as temporary allottee of this land although without it a complete pedigree livestock lot could not be made up. The Collector passed a two‑line order directing that the area be included in the pedigree livestock breeding lot, but did not care to take note of the irregularities reported to have been committed by the Patwari. With the record in this state of affairs, I find that the revision by Allah Rakha in his own right has no force. He does not qualify at all under the Landless Refugees and Ejected Tenants Scheme because of this, on the admission by his counsel, the Additional Commissioner had rejected his appeal in his short order. Whether or not the dependents of Allah Rakha son of Maula Bakhsh deceased, have any right over this land is a question which will have to be gone into by the Collector in terms of the policy instructions contained in letter No. 16009/59/ 642‑6(C), dated the 20th January 1959 relating to devolution of such tenancies on the sons of deceased allottees as also letter No. Col‑8/24‑57(4167), dated 8‑10‑60 relating to the acquisition of proprietary rights by allottees. If it is found that the widow or son of Allah Rakha, deceased eligible to allotment of any portion of this land, the Collector will have to arrange suitable alternative land, with option to purchase proprietary rights for an equivalent area in terms of letter No. 11260/60/7616‑C(G), dated 22‑11‑1960. It was the duty of the Collector to have himself made enquiries, when the complaint was received by him of fudging and collusion on the part of the Patwari. The Khasra Girdawari entries, as appears, from the attested copies exhibited reveal the most unsatisfactory state of affairs and a senior officer should be deputed to affix responsibility of such improper changes in the entries in revenue records. In particular it is essential after examining the Patwari's Roznamcha Waqiati to find out whether the same are entered up in the list of change in cultivation at each harvest severe action will have to be taken against the Patwaris who have, at will, been altering the entries relating to allotments after 1952, when the Landless Refugees and Ejected Tenants' Scheme was approved by Government. After this date, change in the revenue records could only have been justified on the basis of legal order passed by the Collector. I hope that no pains will, be spared in taking deterrent action against all the subordinate revenue officials found guilty of collusion or perversion of Khasra Girdawaris or revenue records. I must lay down emphatically that it is the duty of the superior revenue authorities when cases of this kind come to their notice, not only to rectify any wrongs which may have been effected, but to take very stringent action against subordinate revenue officials, who are at fault. It must be remembered that one of the reasons why the revenue staff is so callous and negligent of their duties is that they are under the impression that all that will happen, if they do not do their duties properly, 'is that on appeal the wrong will have been rectified. They will only do their duties properly, if in addition to the rectification of the wrong, strict action is taken against them. In the result, therefore, I dismiss this revision petition, subject to the Collector holding detailed enquiries determining whether the heirs of Allah Rakha, the deceased original allottee have any rights in the land and if so, taking action according to the instructions cited above. A report may also be submitted to me, through the Commissioner, indicating the result of enquiries and in particular, the revenue officials at fault and the action taken against them. K. M. A. Petition dismissed.