' AKHLAQ AHMAD TARAR (SENIOR MEMBER).--- This single order will dispose of the above mentioned three Revision Petitions as facts and law points involved in these Revision Petitions are identical.
2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioners were leased out State land through open auction under temporary Cultivation Lease Scheme as under:--- Sr. No. Name of lessee Detail of leased out State land Period
1. Muhammad SharifLot No.4, Sq. No.44, Killas Nos.15, 16, 25, Sq.No.45, Killas Nos.15 and 16, measuring 5 Acres, situated in Chak No.20-Gagh, Tehsil ShorkotKharif 1978 to Rabi 1980
2. Muhammad Bakhsh son of MahmoodSq. No.21, Killas Nos.4 to 8, 13 to 19, and 20, measuring 12 Acres 4 Kanals, situated in Chak No.19- Gagh Tehsil ShorkotKharif 1983 to Rabi 1985
3. Muhammad Bakhsh son of Allah DittaSq. No.54, Killas Nos.18 to 25, measuring 64 Kanals, situated in Chak No.19-Gagh, Tehsil ShorkotKharif 1988 to Rabi 1989
3. The lease period was extended from time to time under policy instructions of the Colonies Department, Board of Revenue, Punjab. The Government decided to grant proprietary rights to the lessees of State land under Temporary Cultivation Lease Scheme vide Notification No,1289-95/843- CLI, dated 19-3-1995 subject to fulfilment of certain terms and conditions of the scheme. The applications of the petitioners were rejected vide orders of District Collector dated 19-12-2008, 29- 12-2008 and 27-4-2009 respectively on the ground that original auction proceedings do not contain the approval of the District Collector. Appeals of the petitioners against these orders were dismissed vide orders of EDO(R) dated 26-8-2009 and 8-11-2010 respectively. Hence these Revision Petitions.
4. Counsel for the petitioners has argued that the petitioners were highest bidders and were leased out the land in question in accordance with law/policy of the Government. The bids was confirmed by the then A .C./Collector The failure to get approval of the District Collector on the auction proceedings was duty of the public functionaries and not of the petitioneRs, The petitioner cannot be held responsible for this fault. The petitioners have been cultivating the land leased out to them for the last number of years and paying Government dues regularly. They are landless tenants and self-cultivating lessees of the subject land. They fulfil all the terms and conditions of the scheme for grant of proprietary rights. That in identical cases, other lessees have been granted proprietary rights and law does not permit pick and choose between similarly placed persons. He referred to the cases of Ashiq Hussain, Muhammad Akbar and Muhammad Ishaq and placed reliance on 2006 CLC 1555, 2002 SCMR 71, 2004 CLC 1337, PLD 1.986 Revenue 62.
5. Comments received from Additional District Collector, Jhang indicates that in another case auctions proceedings were to be got confirmed from District Collector but it was not done and the then AC/Collector, Shorkot confirmed the bid slips himself in violation of the instructions, of the Board of Revenue. Subsequently, the matter was referred to the Board of Revenue for seeking advice in such cases and the Board of Revenue vide letter dated 17-2-1999 informed that since approval of lease was not obtained from the District Collector, no lease existed in favour of the applicant. Feeling aggrieved, Ashiq, etc. Such lessees filed Writ Petition No,3492 of 1999 in the Lahore High Court which was disposed of with the following observations:--- "Learned Assistant Advocate-General, submits that the Collector has yet to decide the question of grant of proprietary rights to the petitioner. He. Assures that the Collector shall decide the same strictly on merits and uninfluenced by the afore-referred Memo of the Board of Revenue. Learned counsel for the petitioner is satisfied with the statement made and does not want to, press this petition for the present which is disposed of as not pressed.
5. Subsequently, the District Collector granted proprietary rights to Ashiq. Hussain etc. Lessees vide order dated 11-7-2001 under Notification dated 19-3-1995 as they fulfilled all the terms and conditions as laid down in Notification dated 19-3-1995, except the condition about the confirmation of bid slips, from the District Collector. In the year 2003, the matter was again referred to the Board of Revenue in an identical issue of Muhammad Rafique, etc. And the Board of Revenue vide letter No,484-2003/611-CLI dated 14-4-2003 advised that such cases may be dealt with under the instructions of the Board of Revenue as already conveyed vide their letter dated 17-2-1999. In the light of instructions of the Board of Revenue, the request of the petitioners for grant of proprietary rights were rejected vide impugned order of District Collector, Jhang on the ground that auction proceedings of the lease were not got confirmed from the District Collector and no lease can come into existence in the absence of confirmation of auction bids by the District Collector.
7. I have examined the original allotment file of each of the allottee. Some other cases of similar nature have been examined and it appears that in few similar cases, District Collector, Jhang had granted proprietary rights to the allottees despite the fact that the bid sheet was not approved by the District Collector. One of such orders was announced by the District Collector in the case of Ashiq Hussain, allottee of Chak No,19-Gagh, Tehsil Shorkot, District Jhang. This order was quoted again and again in the various writ petitions in the Lahore High Court and the High Court while disposing of the writ petitions had observed that while determining the issue of grant of proprietary rights to the petitioners, the court shall observe the rule of consistency. If the cases of similar nature have already been decided in favour of the allottees, the same concession should be granted to the present petitioners also because they had secured allotments at the same time, through the same process and their bids were approved by the A.C/Collector, Shorkot at that time. They were given the possession of the land which they are still occupying. According to the Revenue record, the land is still in possession of the allottees and they have been paying the rent also. The only lacuna pointed out is that the final approval of the District Collector of the bid sheets is not available on these files. In a similar nature of case, PLD 1986 Revenue 62, it was held that "non- approval of allotment by District Collector would not be fault of allottee in possession over yeaRs, Allottee would be entitled to restoration of lease in case of having paid rent due from him if land was outside prohibited zone, and no breach of conditions could be attributed to him. Various judgments of the superior courts have upheld the principle of consistency while adjudicating upon rights of parties. In 2002 SCMR page 71, it was held by the Supreme Court of Pakistan that "two groups of persons similarly placed could not be treated differently---Dictates of law, justice and equity required exercise of powers by all concerned to advance the cause of justice and not to thwart it Therefore, keeping in view all the relevant facts, order of the District Collector in similar nature of cases and observations of the High Court, I am of the view that the petitioners must be given the same treatment as has been given in few other cases of similar nature. On the basis of rule of consistency, I would like to accept the Revision Petitions and set aside the impugned orders and allow the right of grant of proprietary rights of the subject leases to the petitioners because in these cases bids were confirmed by AC/Collector initially and allottees were handed over the possession of the land also. The District Collector is directed to process their files accordingly and outstanding dues including the cost of land may be recovered from the allottees as per policy instructions of the Colonies Department, Government of the Punjab.
8. Order in this case was reserved on 5-5-2011 which has been announced today. All concerned be informed accordingly through District Collector, Mang.