1995 PLP 1616 (CLC)

‑‑‑‑S. 10‑‑‑West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967), S. 164‑‑ Allotment of State land under Five‑Years Lease Scheme ‑‑‑Revision‑‑ Maintainability‑‑‑State land was allotted under Five‑years Lease Scheme to original allottee and after expiry of allotment tenure, land was leased out to lessee which was confirmed in his name‑‑‑Original allottee of land in question fled appeal against lease in favour of lessee after about seven years of such lease which appeal was dismissed by Additional Commissioner (Revenue) on ground that appellant kept silent for about seven years and took no action after lease made in favour of lessee‑‑‑Additional Commissioner treated land in dispute to be available for further disposal because lease of lessee also stood expired‑‑‑Counter‑revisions were filed by original allottee and lessee against order of Additional Commissioner‑‑‑Both petitioners (original allottee and lessee) were at fault in not applying for extension of their allotment and lease at the time of expiry of their respective tenures‑‑‑Additional Commissioner, in circumstances, had rightly refused claim of both parties observing that disputed land was available State land should be disposed of further according to policy‑‑‑Revisions were dismissed being devoid of force. Ch. Muhammad Ashraf Azeem for Petitioners. Ch. Khurshid Alam for Respondents. These two revision petitions have been preferred against the order of the Additional. Commissioner (Revenue), Multan Division dated 20‑2‑1994 whereby he rejected the appeal of Abdul Shakoor, petitioner in ROR No.975 of 1994 and lease of Muhammad Bashir, Petitioner in ROR No.855 of 1994 which was held to have been expired after Kharif, 1986. Thus, the said land was treated to be available State land.

2. Brief facts of the case are that Abdul Shakoor, Petitioner in ROR No.975 of 1994 was allotted State land measuring 100 Kanals, comprising Khasra Nos.61/1 to 12, 13‑Half in Chak No.58/WB, Tehsil and District Vehari under Five‑years Lease Scheme on 7‑531979. After expiry the lease tenure of the said land, it was leased out to Muhammad Bshir, Petitioner on 6‑4‑1986 by the Assistant Commissioner/Collector, Vehari which was confirmed by the District Collector on 29‑7‑1986. Abdul Shakoor, Petitioner in ROR No.975 of 1994 being first allottee of the said land preferred an appeal against the allotment made to Muhammad Bahsir, Petitioner in ROR No.855 of 1994 on 1512‑1993 after about seven years. The Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Multan Division, rejected the appeal of Abdul Shakoor on the ground that he kept silent and took no action after the allotment made to Muhammad Bashir in 1986. He, however, treated the said land to be available for further disposal because the lease of Muhammad Bashir also stood expired after Kharif, 1986 vide his order dated 20‑2‑1994. Hence these two counter‑revision petitions filed by both the parties which are being disposed of with this single order.

3. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for both the Petitioners and have perused the record available in these files. In these cases, both the Petitioners were at fault in not applying for the extension of their leases at the time of the. expiry of their respective tenures. The Additional Commissioner (Revenue) has, therefore, rightly refused the claim of both the parties and observed that the disputed land is available State land and should be disposed of further according to policy.

5. In view of the above observation, both the revision petitions are dismissed being devoid of force. The order of the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Multan Division is upheld and should be implemented in letter and spirit. The land in dispute should be included in the schedule of auction under Temporary Cultivation Lease Scheme and disposed of accordingly. H.B.T./24/Rev. Petition dismissed.