2005 PLP 1590 (CLC)

The petitioners, by means of writ petition has assailed the order of Member, Board of Revenue dated 13-6-1978.

2. One Dilawar Khan, Lambardar predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners was given land measuring 25 acres comprising square No.33 Killa No.1 to 25 in Chak No.431/G.B. Tehsil Jaranwala under Mule-Breeding Scheme. He was allowed to acquire proprietary rights of this land at the rate of Rs.150 per acre on 17-5-1952. He, however, deposited only one instalment and the balance remained unpaid. Subsequently, the Government allowed him to pay the price at the rate of Rs.800 per acre. Dilawar Khan availed of this concession but once again deposited only one instalment and failed to. pay the remaining instalments. He died on 8-9-1970. After his death, there was a vacancy in the post of Lambardar of Chak. Ali Muhammad, the eldest son of the said Dilawar Khan applied for the appointment of the post but he was not selected. His appeal and revision were also rejected. Another Lambardar was appointed in his place and the tenancy was resumed on 30-8-1974. The petitioners filed an appeal against the aforesaid order and the case was remanded by the Commissioner to the District Collector for fresh decision after hearing the petitioners. The District Collector heard the matter afresh and once again directed that tenancy be resumed vide his order, dated 3-1-1978. The petitioners filed a revision against the aforesaid order before the Commissioner. The matter came up for adjudication before Commissioner, Sargodha Region, Sargodha who vide his order dated 9-4-1978 dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of District Collector. Thereafter a revision was filed before Member, Board of Revenue. This revision was also dismissed by Member (Colonies) Board of Revenue, Punjab, vide its order, dated 13-6-1978.

3. It may be mentioned here that the petitioners had also filed a civil suit in respect of this very land but the same was dismissed. The said land has now been given on temporary tenancy for a period of five years on 9-11-1974 to the respondents.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that no notice was given to the petitioners before the resumption of land as required by section 24 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act and that the Mule-Breeding Grant was inheritable by the successors of the deceased Lambardar. In this regard he has relied upon Muhammad Yousaf v. Punjab Province PLD 1967 Lah. 328 and upon the conditions for the purchase of Proprietary Rights published in Gazette of Punjab Extraordinary 3rd September, 1979. He also referred to para.6(3) of the Punjab. Colony Manual in support of the proposition that the persons other than Lambardars may be allowed to retain the land under the Mule-Breeding Scheme. He relied upon Anjuman-e-Ahmadiya v. Deputy Commissioner Sargodha PLD 1966 SC 639 at page 648.

5. None of the contentions raised by leaned counsel for the petitioners have any force.

6. In the first instance no doubt it was found by the' Commissioner on appeal by the petitioner that they were not heard by the Collector while ordering the resumption of land. The order of resumption was set aside and the case was remanded to the Collector for fresh decision. Thus, the defect in the earlier order was cured when they were heard by the Collector on remand. Reliance in this regard is placed upon Allah Ditta v. Member, Board of Revenue (Consolidation) PLD 1967 Lah.

897. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to cite any provision of law or, rules or conditions of grant which sought to confer any right on the legal heirs or successors of a grantee who had failed to deposit the instalments as required by law. Admittedly in the instant case, Dilawar Khan, the original grantee/Lambardar was given option to purchase the land. This right was given to him on 17-5-1952 when he was allowed to acquired proprietary rights in the land. He did not pay the price to the A Government. None of his successors was appointed as Lambardar of the Chak after his death. The tenancy was resumed by the Collector due to non-payment of the price of land. It has been specifically laid down in the conditions governing Mule-Breeding Tenancy that in case a grantee defaults in payment of the purchase price, the grant would be liable to resumption. It is not denied by learned counsel for the petitioners that Dilawar Khan deceased had not paid the balance of the purchase price to the Government. The land was liable to resumption. The same view has been taken by Board of Revenue in Noor Khan v. Muhanunad Nawaz PLD 1979 Revenue

24. It has been held in this case that tenancy in a Horse Breeding Scheme was not inheritable and it terminated on the demise of the tenant and would revert to the Government. The case Muhammad Yousaf v. Punjab Province PLD 1976 Lah. 328,' which has been cited by learned counsel for the petitioners is of no help, to him. This judgment lays down that according to section 10(4) of the Colonization of Government Lands Act only such person would be deemed to be a tenant and would have a right of title in the land only after such an order has been passed and he has been put in possession of the land with the permission of the Collector. There is nothing in the record to show that such an order has been passed by the Collector in the case and that the petitioners or their predecessor-in-interest Dilawar Khan was ever put into possession of the land with the permission of the Collector after the payment of the purchase price to the Government.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also referred to Anjuman e-Ahmadiya v. Deputy Commissioner Sargodha PLD 1966 SC

639. This authority lays down that even in case of tenant who has not acquired proprietary rights, resumption of tenancy is possible under section 24 of the said Act only after giving a tenant an opportunity of being heard and state objection. I have already held above that no doubt the petitioners were not heard in the first instance by the Collector while resuming the land but when the case was remanded to the Collector for fresh decision on merits by the Commissioner, the initial defect stood cured. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also sought support from the Conditions of Purchase of Proprietary Rights as notified by the Government of Punjab in Extraordinary Gazette of 3-9-1979. These conditions are applicable to the purchase of proprietary rights in State land granted on temporary cultivation leases in the Province of Punjab other than the area of Cholistan. These conditions are not applicable to the case of the petitioners because they were never given any land on temporary cultivation lease.

8. In view of the above, discussion, this writ petition has no merit and is dismissed. H.BT./B-87/L Petition dismissed.