P L D 1959 W (PLP)

2. Section 8 of the said Act lays down that an order could be reviewed on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record etc. In the present case, my predecessor held that the property in question should have been treated as evacuee property and so the order passed against Niaz Muhammad, the respondent, under the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912, was considered ultra vires. On that finding he set aside the order passed against the respondent.

3. The property in the present case is the shop site No. 16/8 situated in Gaggoo Bazar, Tehsil Pakpattan, District Montgomery having an area of 5 marlas of State Land. The site of the shop belongs to the State and remained on yearly lease with one Isher Das--‑Faqir Chand before the year 1932. Subsequently the lease was sanctioned in favour of Ram Dhan. On 24‑3‑33, Ram Dhan applied for the cancellation of the lease and it was given to Mehar Singh for a year, under the Colonization of Government Lands (Pb.) Act, 1912, on 4‑4‑1933. Thereafter Mehr Singh continued to get lease of the site yearly. The con ditions governing such leases at Gaggoo are contained in Correc tion Slip No. 9 C.M., dated 8‑12‑1934, at page 88 of the Punjab Colony Manual, Supplement No. V. Condition No. 2 of these conditions is as follows: "The lease will be for one year." The original lease deed dated 21‑3‑1947 executed by Mehar Singh, which is at page 83 of the file, shows that the shop was again leased to him for one year i.e., from 1‑4‑1947 to 31‑3‑1948. Thus, Mehar Singh was the lessee at the time of Independence and the lease expired in due course of law on 21‑3‑1948 on which date the shop site was resumed by the Colonization Officer, Niii Bar. It was temporarily allotted under the Colonization o Government Lanos (Pb.) Act, to one Abdul Ghani, a local on 2‑I1‑1948 by the Colonization Officer on the condition that the allottee will have to vacate when a refugee claimant applied for it. It was reported on 11‑4‑51 that the shop in question was in the unauthorised occupation of Niaz Muhammad, the res pondent, a local and that notice of ejectment should be served on him. After making necessary enquiries the Colonization Officer (Collector) passed the following order on 28‑11‑51:‑ (i) Niaz Muhammad (the respondent) the unauthorised occupant should be served with a notice under section 32 of The Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912; (ii) that the allotment of Abdul Ghani is cancelled; and (iii) that it is allotted to the President, Muslim League.

4. It would thus appear that the Collector allotted the shop site from the time to time under the Colonisation of Government Lands Act. If it was intended to treat it as evacuee property subsequently, that could have been considered under the law then in force, but that was not done and the site was not treated as evacuee property till 31st December

56. In fact, the site did not come to the notice of the Collector till 31‑3‑1948 and was not treated as evacuee property by any authority. The Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property)) Act, 1957, came into force on 15‑3‑1957. According to section 3 of this Act, no property which has not been treated as evacuee property immediately before the first day of January, 1957, could be treated as evacuee property. Under these circumstances, this property could not be treated as evacuee property after the coming into force of the Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Act, 1957. The order of my learned predecessor was passed on 11‑5‑57 and so, the property in question could not be treated as evacuee property even if it should have been treated an evacuee property at the appropriate time.

5. My learned predecessor has observed that the lease in the present case was from year to year. As indicated above, that is not so. The lease was for a specified period. According to section 9 (3) (a) (i) of the Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Act, 1957, nothing in that section shall empower the Custodian or a Rehabilitation Authority to grant c without the consent in writing of the original lessor, where the original lease is for a specified period, any allotment for a period extending beyond the date on which the original lease would have expired. In the present case, the original lease expired on 31‑3‑1948 and so neither the Custodian nor the Rehabilitation Authority was empowered to grant any fresh lease without the consent of the lessor which in the present case was not obtained.

6. My learned predecessor based his order on the following propositions:‑ (i) That the lease of the site was from year to year and not for a specified period; and (ii) that the property which had not been treated, as evacuee property immediately before 1‑1‑1957, could be treated as evacuee property, subsequently. As has been indicated above, both these propositions are erroneous. That being so, there is an error apparent on the face of the record and so purview of the order is permissible. The site in question was allotted to the President, Muslim League, Montgomery, for his office by Collector's order dated 28‑11‑1951. The respondent unlawfully occupied the site and claimed allotment. His application was rejected. A notice of ejectment was issued against him (the respondent) on 7‑12‑

51. He filed an appeal which was dismissed with the following observations:‑ "that the premises had never been allotted to Niaz Muhammad and that he was obviously an unauthorised occupant and the Colonization Officer, Nili Bar, had there fore rightly allotted the shop to the Muslim League Branch Office." Nevertheless, the respondent did not surrender possession and subleased it to Muhammad Ali (the petitioner) at the rate of Rs. 22 as against the rent of Rs. 7‑8‑

0. The Collector visited the site on 3‑12‑1956 and passed the following order:‑ "Ihata No. 16/8 stands entered in the name of Muslim League Office. This is a shop. It is in the de facto possession of Niaz Muhammad who has leased it out to Muhammad Ali Barall. (the petitioner) at the rate of Rs. 22 per month. Niaz Muhammad has no locus standi to do so this shop is allotted to Muhammad Ali (the petitioner) who should deposit the advance rent up to March 31, 1957, within two weeks from to‑day. The rent is to be realised in a lump sum.

7. On appeal the Commissioner confirmed the order of the Collector. No illegality or material irregularity which has occasioned a failure of justice, could be pointed out in these E findings. That being so, there was no ground for any interference in revision.

8. In view of what has been stated above, I review my predecessor's order, reject the revision petition filed by Niaz Muhammad and confirm Collector's order dated 3‑12‑1956 which was upheld by the Additional Commissioner, Multan Division, on 7‑2‑1957. K. M. A. Petition accepted.