P L D 1962 W (PLP)

This is a revision petition against order dated 10‑5‑1961, of the Additional Commissioner, Multan, whereby the Collector (C. A. Montgomery T. C's.) order dated 28‑2‑1961, refusing to make allotment to the petitioners as ejected and landless tenants, was confirmed. It transpires that the three petitioners, who are brothers, were allotted State land in Sq. Nos. 5 and 6 Chak No. 46/3‑R, Tehsil Okara, in 1953, and their allotment was duly regularised by the Collector in 1955. It has been explained that later it was discovered, on complaint by a refugee informer that the land allotted to the petitioners was not State land, but was evacuee land, since an evacuee had purchased it and paid for it before he left for India, although no mutation or entry was made in respect of this sale in the revenue records. As the petitioners were being required to vacate the land, they applied to the Collector that in the interest of justice, alternative State land should be granted to them pleading that it was no fault of theirs that under a genuine misapprehension they were settled on land under the Ejected Tenants Scheme, which was eventually discovered to be evacuee land and had since been allotted to the refugee informer. The then Collector in his order dated 18‑5‑1960, is reported to have directed the office to' suggest alternative land. He was, however, transferred and his successor the present C. A. C. in his order dated 28‑2‑1961, rejected the application of the petitioners on the ground that they had "not been able to explain as to how and why the area formerly allotted to them had been treated as evacuee land. If the same was done under orders of some competent authority, then the petitioners should have gone in appeal against that order and should have sought a direction from the appellate Court for the allotment of some other land to them in lieu of the areas which had been taken away from them". The Collector went on to state that he was not authorised to make new allotments to the petitioners at this late stage and the only remedy open to them was to appeal against the order by which they had been deprived of their former areas. A copy of his predecessor's order dated 18‑5‑1960, has not been produced. However, if it existed, it ought to have occurred to him that he could riot legally review his predecessor's order without obtaining the permission of the Commissioner under section 15 (1) (a) of the Punjab Land Revenue Act. I find it distressing to go through an order of this kind, particularly as the Collector has mentioned that the petitioners were present before him with their counsel and had been heard. Since they filed their revisions before the Additional Commis sioner within a month after this order in which they explained the whole case, I cannot see how the. Colony Assistant failed to appreciate this case in the correct perspective. His failure to apply his mind to the simple issues before him has resulted in un‑told trouble and expense to the unfortunate petitioners who in consequence have had to come up in appeal/revision. The learned Additional Commissioner, Multan, in the order under revision has appreciated the position but has pleaded that: - "According to the Board of Revenue directions contained in Memo. No. 12481‑59/4437‑C(G) dated 5‑9‑1959 it is not possible to give any land to the appellants at this late stage even though the appellants may have been divested of their lands held under the Ejected Tenants Scheme in Rabi 1960, in consequence of these lands having been declared evacuee property and consequent allotment to displaced persons." He observed that: "Although, therefore, I see no reason to interfere with the learned Collector's order, I observe that the appellant's case has distinctive features of its own and, therefore, direct that the learned Collector may prepare a reference to be made to the Board of Revenue through the Commissioner for the allotment of alternative land as a special case so that they receive the same benefit from the Government as the Govern ment has been pleased to confer upon other lessees of land under the Ejected Tenants Scheme, who are being granted proprietary rights." Subject to the above remarks, he saw no reason to interfere with the Collector's order. Here again I must point out that the proper course, which the Additional Commissioner should have taken, was to have sent a copy of his order to the Secretary (Colonies) B. O. R. with the recommendation that in the special circumstances of this case permission be granted to allotment of alternative land under the Ejected Tenants Scheme in lieu of the evacuee land granted to the petitioners as State land. I am sure this recom mendation would have been accepted, since it was not the petitioners fault that they were settled on evacuee land under the belief that it was State land. Moreover, there are countless precedents to show that the Board of Revenue has taken a sympathetic view of cases of this kind: e.g. where the resumed, Lambardari grants were allotted under the Ejected Tenants Scheme, contrary to Government instructions and subsequently, on their being resumed and granted under the Pedigree Livestock Scheme, the ejected tenants concerned were ordered to be granted alternative land vide memo. No. 11260‑60/7616‑C (G), dated 22‑11‑1960. It would appear that as the petitioners case had not been recommended by the Collector, they have been forced to file a further appeal to bring their hard case specifically to the Board's notice. 1 have verified from the Colonies Branch that no recom mendation in the petitioners favour has been received as yet from the Collector, Montgomery, despite the directive in the Additional Commissioner's order of May 1961. It is a sad reflection on the manner in which the concerned officers of the Revenue Administration are unmindful of their duties towards helpless Government tenants, that nobody has budged to give a helping hand to these unfortunate victims of an error in Revenue records. I have dealt with tile different features of this case at considerable length in the hope that it may shake the conscience of the concerned officers out of tile lethargy displayed and that it may help to kindle a higher sense of duty towards petty ejected tenants in their charges. In so far as the circumstances of this case are concerned, I have the approval of the Member, Board of Revenue (Colonies) that it is a fit case for the grant of alternative lands. Accordingly, I accept the revision to the extent that I would direct that the petitioners be accommodated in alternative culturable State land in lieu of the evacuee land as entitled tenants under the Ejected Tenants Scheme. K. M. A. Petition accepted.