P L D 1972 Rev (PLP)

Well Sinking Scheme‑Area forming part of a lot already allotted to a landless tenant under 15 years lease scheme

Such allottee can not be deprived of land to satisfy desire of petitioner for additional ownership. Raja Muhammad Idrees for Petitioner. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner on 6th December and 14th December 1971 and seen the records of the case. Briefly the position is that the petitioner is interested in buying 4 acres, 4 kanals and 15 marlas from the Government in excess of 25 acres, the area to which he was entitled, under the Well Sinking Scheme in Chak No. 113/[5‑L Tehsil Khanewal. At first the Commissioner had agreed for the sale vide his order dated 12‑7‑1971. But later on when it came to his notice that this area had already been allotted under the 15 years lease scheme to some landless tenants, he reviewed his earlier order by his order dated 19‑10‑1971, setting aside his previous order and permission for sale. The petitioner has now come up in revision against the order of the Commissioner dated 19‑10‑1971, and wants an order stopping the implementation of the allotment under the 15 years Lease Scheme. The learned counsel in this case is relying on the Government order contained in Memo No. 1285‑70/251‑CL. V dated 22‑1‑1971. In this order it had been laid down that withdrawal of such (excess) area will, in most of the cases, form awkward plots and will not be of much use to the Government". It was therefore laid down that "the lessees who opt to retain such excess area, shall pay double the rent from the date of allotment. They shall be entitled to purchase proprietary rights on average market price of the preceding 12 months, provided such area does not exceed 10 % of the prescribed limit". In this case it is abundantly brought out from the records and the orders of the Collector dated 4‑5‑1971 and of Commissioner dated 19‑10‑1971 that the area in question is not an awkward plot which could not be of much use to the Government. If this was so, it could not have been acceptable to lessees under the 15 years Lease Scheme. It is also on record that the area in question is 4 acres 4 kanals and 15 marlas which exceeds the 10 % limit prescribed by the Government. It has been urged by the learned counsel that the petitioner may be allowed to purchase 2 acres 4 kanals out of this area. This could have been considered under other circumstances. But in the present case when the whole of this area of 4 acres 4 kanals and 15 marlas forms part of a lot already allotted to a landless tenant under 15 years Lease Scheme, the latter cannot be 4 deprived of 2.5 acres state land to satisfy the desire of the petitioner for additional ownership. It has already come on record in the order of the Collector dated 26‑3‑1971 that the petitioner was an owner of another 28 acres of land in Chaks Nos. 116/15‑L and 109/15‑L. which fact has been confirmed before me also by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In other words apart from the 25 acres of Well Sinking Scheme in which he has been allowed to acquire proprietary rights, he also owns 28 acres. As a matter of social justice and fairness, therefore, the landless tenant could not be deprived of the 2 acres, which the petitioner wants to acquire to add to his proprietary holdings. In view of the above circumstances, I do not see any grounds for interfering with the orders of the Collector dated 4‑5‑1971 and of the Commissioner dated 19‑10‑1971 and reject the revision petition. Orders may be issued and the parties informed accordingly. Petition rejected.