P L D 1966 W (PLP)

These are six connected Revision Petitions Nos. 1842 to 1847, of 1963‑64, against the order of the Additional Commissioner, Multan, dated 2‑5‑1964, rejecting the appeals preferred by the petitioners against the order of the Collector, dated 2‑9‑1963, refusing them proprietary rights in State land situated in chak No. 107/10‑R, district Multan. The facts of the case have been summarised by the Additional Commissioner (Revenue) Multan in his order, dated 2‑5‑1964. Two main reasons for the rejection of the petitioner's appeal by the Additional Commissioner were:‑

(i) That the land was situated within five miles' radius of Municipal limits, and (ii) as the land was allotted on 21‑12‑1956, the five years' lease period expired before Rabi 1962, ruling out the, peti tioner's claim for purchase of land by private, treaty. I shall take the second point first. It is admitted that the order of the lease of land was passed in the year 1956, but it is urged that its possession was not delivered till Kharif 1957, and five years should be counted from then. On this point the Board of Revenue issued a specific clarification of the scheme under which the petitioners would have been eligible for purchase of land by private treaty. Under this clarification, dated 21‑11‑1963, five years "are to be reckoned from the date of allotment and not from the date of possession". In view of this clear stipulation it is obvious that the petitioners were not entitled to concessions under the scheme of 22nd October 1962. It was urged in this connection that irrespective of clarification by the Board of Revenue, tenancy under Colonization of Government Lands Act is to be counted from the date of possession and so the instructions of the Board of Revenue issued on 21‑11‑1963, are inoperative. Actually the scheme of 22‑10‑1962, was a special scheme. The petitioners had no claim or right to purchase this land by private treaty under ordinary provisions of the Colonization of Government Lands Act, and became eligible for this privilege only under a special scheme, of which the details could be separately determined. Besides, the relevant reference to the Colonization of Government Lands Act relates to "a tenancy" while the references in the scheme, dated 22‑10‑1962, and clarification dated 21‑11‑1963, are to "leases" and the "lessees" and so presumably the relevant provisions of Colonization of Government Lands Act concerning the tenancy need not apply. The stand taken by the Additional Commissioner, Multan, is one consistently taken by the Board of Revenue and in view of the clear directions of the 21st November, 1963, he could not correctly take any other stand. In view of this there is no case for interfering with his order and the revision petitions are rejected. In view of this position it is not necessary for me to go into the question of location of the land. The petitioners should be informed. S. Q. Petition rejected.