' These two revision petitions have been filed against the order dated 5-9-1979 of Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Multan by which he upheld, in appeal, the order dated 8-5-1979 of Deputy Commissioner/ Collector, Sahiwal imposing on the petitioner a penalty equal to double the bid money.
2. Briefly, the State land comprising 6i acres situated in Chak No, 88/6-R was leased out to the petitioner in auction for three years from Kharif 1975. The petitioner paid the lease money for the first year but defaulted in payment subsequently. A notice was issued to him but he still failed to pay the rent. The Deputy Commissioner/Collector, therefore, imposed on him a penalty equal to double the bid money, vide order dated 8-5-1979. The petitioner filed two separate appeals against this order which were rejected by the Additional Commissioner (Revenue) on 5-9-1979.
Hence these revision petitions.
3. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he obtained the lease and delivery of possession of the land under the order of competent authority and therefore no penalty for illicit cultivation could be competently imposed on him. If the petitioner had failed to pay the rent subsequently, it was argued, then the Collector should have directed him by a written notice to make the payment and on his failure to do so would have either imposed on him a penalty not exceeding Its. 100 or have ordered resumption of the tenancy in accordance with the provisions of section 24 of the Colonization of the Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912. There is force in these arguments. Since non-payment of rent is a breach of condition capable of rectification, the petitioner should have been first required by a written notice to have the breach rectified and if he had failed to do so then either a penalty not exceeding Rs, 100 should have been imposed on him or his tenancy resumed under section 24 of the Colonization Act. At same time it was also open to the Collector to have recovered the rent a arrears of land revenue as provided under section 28 of the said Act. But there is nothing in the law that empowers the Collector to impose on a defaulting lessee a penalty equal to double the bid money which exceeds Rs, 100.
4. In view of the above I would partly allow these revision petitions and order that the arrears of rent alongwith a penalty of Rs, 100 be recovered from the petitioner.