1996 PLP 468 (CLC)

1981 and owner of 24 Kanals, 8 Marlas. (2) Ramzan son of Gahna 53‑14 Senior landless tenant of 36 harvests from Kharif 1960 Rabi 1978. (3) Ali Muhammad son of 65‑18 Senior landless tenant from Kalu Rabi 1972 to Rabi 1989 . (4) Karam son of Rehman 93‑9 Senior landless tenant of 33 harvests from Rabi 1972 to Rabi 1989. (5) Sultan son of Waryam 93‑4 Senior tenant of harvests from Rabi 1971 to Kharif 1978 and owner of 2 Kanals 16 Marlas. Ali Muhammad at S.No.(3) above/respondent No.2 in the present revision petitions, filed appeal against the orders dated 15‑I2‑1990 of the Deputy Land Commissioner, Bahawalnagar impleading Karam, Bashir Ahmad and Sultan, at S.Nos.(4), (1) and (5) above, as respondents. Ali Muhammad contended that Karam, Bashir Ahmad, and Sultan had been wrongly allotted resumed land under section 15(3) of the Land Reforms Act, 1977, because according to 3amabandi, Karam was not senior tenant of the village while Bashir Ahmad and Sultan already owned land. Ali Muhammad prayed that the allotments of Karam, Bashir Ahmad and Sultan be cancelled and he be allotted resumed land up to ceiling, instead of 65 Kanals, 18 Marlas. The Land Commissioner, Bahawalpur Division, by his order dated 1‑1‑1992 accepted the appeal, cancelled the allotment of area of 71 Kanals, 12 Marlas from the name of Bashir Ahmad and ordered allotment of resumed land up to maximum ceiling in favour of Ali Muhammad, Ramzan and Karam and allotment of the remaining resumed land to Sultan. Consequently the Deputy Land Commissioner, Bahawalnagar by his order dated 3‑5‑1992 approved the allotment of 100 Kanals, 1 Maria in favour of Ali Muhammad, 100 Kanals in favour of Muhammad Ramzan, 100 Kanals in favour of Karam and 77 Kanals, 16 Marlas in favour of Sultan. Ashiq Muhammad, petitioner in Revision Petition No.48 of 1992, filed appeal before the Land Commissioner, Bahawalpur Division against the orders dated 15‑12‑1990 of the Deputy Land Commissioner, Bahawalnagar, impleading Karam and Ali as respondents. Ashiq Muhammad claimed that he was the senior tenant of Mauza Shahli Gharbi since 1960 and so was Ramzan, but the resumed land had been wrongly allotted to Bashir Ahmad, Ali Muhammad, Karam and Sultan on the basis of wrong list of senior tenants fraudulently prepared by the Patwari. He prayed that allotments in favour of respondents be cancelled and land be allotted to him as senior tenant of the village since 1960. The Land Commissioner by his order dated 21-7‑1992 dismissed the ‑appeal of Ashiq Muhammad as time‑barred keeping also in view his order dated 1‑1‑1992 Hence Revision Petition No. 48 of 1992 Similar appeal was filed before the Land Commissioner, Bahawalpur Division, by Shah Muhammad, petitioner in Revision Petition No. 49 of 1992, impleading Karam and Ali as respondents, but that appeal was also dismissed as time‑barred, vide Land Commissioner's order dated 21‑7‑1992. Hence Revision Petition No.49 of 1992.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant record 4. 'The learned counsel for respondent No.1 argued that the Land Commissioner, Bahawalpur Division, had rightly dismissed the appeals of the petitioners as time‑barred, because section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 was not applicable to cases under the Land Reforms and the delay of one year 5 months 21 days in filing the appeals could not be condoned; that the order dated 1‑1‑1992 of the Land Commissioner on the appeal of Ali Muhammad, having not been challenged by the petitioners, had attained finality; and that in view of this position, the Chief Land Commissioner, Punjab could not interfere with the orders dated 1‑1‑1992 and 21‑7‑1992 of the Land Commissioner. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 contended that Ashiq Muhammad, petitioner, was a shopkeeper and not a cultivator.

5. I agree with the learned counsel for respondent No.1 to the extent that on the revision petitions of Ashiq Muhammad and Shah Muhammad, the Chief Land Commissioner, Punjab, cannot interfere with the orders dated 1‑1‑1992 and 21‑7‑1992 of the Land Commissioner, Bahawalpur. But on the question of finality of orders, I do not agree with the learned counsel for respondent No.l, because according to the provisions of rule 15 falling under Chapter IV of the Punjab Land Reform Rules, 1977, the finality of orders is subject to other provisions of the said Chapter IV and rule 13 falling in the said Chapter IV empowers the Chief Land Commissioner to ,examine in suo motu revision at any time the orders passed by subordinate officers. I also find that before passing orders dated 15‑12‑1990, the Deputy Land Commissioner, Bahawalnagar, had not complied with the requirements of rule 9 of the Punjab Land Reforms (Procedure for Grant of Land) Rules, 1978, regarding publishing of a notice inviting applications by a prescribed date for grant of untenanted resumed land in Mauza Shahli Gharbi. The Land Commissioner, Bahawalpur while passing orders dated 1‑1‑1992 and 21‑7‑1992 failed to take notice of violation of the provisions of rule 9 of the aforesaid 1978 Rules by the Deputy Land Commissioner, Bahawalnagar. The order dated 3‑5‑1992 of the Deputy Land Commissioner, Bahawalnagar was also not in conformity with the order dated 1‑1‑1992 of the Land Commissioner, Bahawalpur, read with the provisions of section 15 of the Land Reforms Act, 1977 and rule 8 of the aforesaid 1978 Rules, as the maximum ceiling of allotment was twelve acres (96 Kanals) and not subsistence holding (100 Kanals or so).

6. Resultantly the revision petitions fail and are rejected. However, in exercise of the power of suo motu revision under rule 13 of the Punjab Land Reforms Rules, 1977, I set aside the orders dated 1‑1‑1992 and 21‑7‑1992 of the Land Commissioner, Bahawalpur Division, and the orders dated 15‑12‑1990 and 3‑5‑1992 of the Deputy Land Commissioner, Bahawalnagar, and remand the case to the Deputy Land Commissioner, Bahawalnagar, for fresh disposal of the resumed area 377 Kanals, 17 Marlas in Mauza Shahli Gharbi strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Punjab Land Reforms (Procedure for Grant of Land) Rules, 1978.

7. The record of the Deputy Land Commissioner, Bahawalnagar, should be returned to him, alongwith a copy of this order, for immediate compliance of this order. H.B.T./38/R Order accordingly