WAHEED AKHTAR ANSARI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL-III)---This revision petition has been filed against order dated 14.03.2013, passed by learned Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), Multan Division, Multan, whereby appeal of the present respondent was accepted.
2. Arguments heard and record perused.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that petitioner No.1 is Lambardar of Chak No.297/WB, Tehsil Dunyapur, District Lodhran. The land comprising rectangle No.9, killa Nos.1 to 3, 8 to 12, 13/1, 18/2, 20 to 22, 23/1, total 100-kanals was allotted to predecessor -in-interest of the petitioner as Cattle Breeding Scheme, being Lambardar of the said Chak. After his death, petitioner No.1 was appointed as Lambardar of the Chak. This land was allotted to petitioner No.1 under Lambardari grant. The respondent was in unauthorized occupation of the land in question. Learned District Officer (Revenue), Lodhran, ordered for ejectment of the respondent by initiation of proceedings under section 32/34 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912. Respondent filed appeal, which was dismissed by learned Executive District Officer (Revenue), Lodhran, vide order dated 25.04.2006. Then the respondent filed Revision Petition No.811/2006 in the Board of Revenue, Punjab, which was dismissed on 11.06.2008. Consequently, learned Additional District Collector, Lodhran ordered for ejectment of respondent vide order dated 11.08.2012. The respondent filed an appeal against this order before learned Additional Commissioner, who accepted the same on 14.03.2013. The order of learned lower court is against the law and facts of the case. The order of learned Member (Judicial-IV), Board of Revenue, Punjab, was not challenged before any higher forum. Therefore, learned Additional Commissioner Revenue was not competent to nullify the effect of order passed by the competent authority. The Lambardari grant is state land and was allotted to petitioner No.1, who is tenant of government and cannot be ejected through suit. Finally, it was prayed that the revision petition may be accepted.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent contended that the land in question was allotted to predecessor-in-interest of the parties under the Cattle Breeding Scheme. The allottee died in year 1981. Therefore, Muhammad Saleem was appointed Lambardar. The said petitioner Muhammad Saleem was serving as Sub-Engineer at Bahawalpur. Therefore, due to his absence some irrelevant persons encroached the land. However, those illegal occupants were ejected. Later on, absence of Muhammad Saleem was hampering his performance as Lambardar. However, the land in question was being cultivated by the present respondent Muhammad Imtiaz and his father Bashir Ahmad.
During this period, controversy arose between the parties and resultantly government dues i.e. Water rates etc. Was being deposited by the respondents. Subsequently, the controversy between the parties was settled and accordingly it was agreed that all the Lambardari matters shall be tackled and performed by the present respondent Muhammad Imtiaz. A statement was also got recorded by the present petitioner stating therein that he will not file any appeal or suit for enactment against the petitioner. An arbitration decision between the parties in this respect was in existence. The petitioner is in possession of the land as tenant at will of the respondents.Learned Additional Commissioner arrived at a right and fair conclusion, whereby appeal of the respondents was accepted and Assistant Commissioner, Dunyapur was directed to hear contention of the parties and then decide the matter in accordance with law. This order is quite legal and justified and no irregularity has been committed in the same. Lastly, it was prayed that the revision petition may be dismissed.
5. I have considered the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record available in the case file including the impugned orders. Brief of the matter is that 100-kanals of land bearing khasra Nos.9/1, 2, 3/1, 8/2, 9 to 12,19 to 22 and 23/1, situated in the Chak No.297/WB, Tehsil Dunyapur was allotted to Muhammad Saleem, under lambardari grant. The land in question was in the possession of Muhammad Imtiaz, present respondent, who filed an application before learned District Officer (Revenue), Lodhran, wherein he requested for appointment of Superdar of the land in question. Accordingly, learned Deputy District Officer (Revenue), Dunyapur wrote a letter dated 28.03.2006 to learned District Officer (Revenue), Lodhran, whereby it was informed that Tehsildar, Dunyapur had been directed to get the land vacated by initiation of proceedings under sections 32/34 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab), Act, 1912. Aggrieved by that order, Muhammad Imtiaz filed an appeal in the court of learned Executive District Officer (Revenue), Lodhran which was dismissed in limine vide order dated 25.04.2006. This order was challenged by Muhammad Imtiaz, the present respondent in the Board of Revenue, Punjab through revision petition, which was dismissed vide order dated 11.06.2008. The operative part of the order reads as under:-- "I have considered the ex-parte arguments of the petitioner and have also gone through the file of this case. On examination of the record available on the file, it is found that the land in question allotted on lease basis to the present respondent by the District Collector, Lodhran vide order dated 16.09.1997 under the Lambardari Scheme. The record shows that the above said lease is still intact.
Further from the perusal of the entries recorded in the register girdawari in spite of the fact that the land in question is owned by the Provincial Government and under lease to the present respondent under the above mentioned scheme, the name of the present petitioner was recorded as "Tenantat-Will" without any lawful justification. Apparently, this is merely an expression of art on the part of the Patwari Halqa, who recorded the present petitioner as "Tenant- at-will" instead of illegal occupant on the said land. Further, the present petitioner has utterly failed to produce any documentary girdawari pertaining to the land in question has lawful sanctity behind it. It appears that the DDO(R), Dunyapur, District Lodhran has rightly directed the Tehsildar, Dunyapur to get the land in question vacated from the present petitioner.
' In view of what has been stated above, I find no lawful justification to interfere with the impugned order dated 25.04.2006, passed by the EDO(R), Lodhran. The same is upheld. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed.
6. Thereafter, learned Additional District Collector, Lodhran vide order dated 11.08.2012 directed ejectment of Muhammad Imtiaz from the land in question. Subsequently, Muhammad Imtiaz filed an appeal before learned Additional Commissioner (Consolidation). Multan Division, Multan, which was accepted vide order dated 14.03.2013. The operative para reads as under:-- {{URDU TEXT}}
7. Both the parties are without clean hands. The petitioner being Lambardar of the village was allotted the impugned land as Lambardari grant. He leased out the part of this grant measuring 100-K to the respondent. The receipt of payment of lease money, by Muhammad Imtiaz, the present respondent to the present petitioner, compromise arrived at between the parties are ir- rebuttable evidence of such lease. It is noted that the allottee was never competent to go into such agreement as per para 16 of notification No.2664-C, dated 22.09.1944 is relevant in this regard, which is reproduced as under:-- "Restriction on assignment. The tenant shall not without the permission in writing of Government first obtained, assign sublet or transfer by mortgage or otherwise or part with the land or any part thereof, except by way of sub-lease to such sub-tenants as he has reasonable cause to believe will cultivate the land with their own hands in the manner provided by this statement of conditions"
8. Hence, it is established that the present respondent has no locus-standi, whatsoever, against the impugned land. The petitioner has even rendered himself ineligible to continue further with the grant being violator of the terms and conditions of the grant in terms of section 24. Hence, the revision petition is dismissed and impugned order dated 14.03.2013, passed by learned Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), Multan Division, 11.08.2012 are set aside. The lambardari grant is cancelled and learned District Collector, Lodhran, is directed to resume the same in favour of state with immediate effect under intimation to this court. The land shall be disposed of as per prevalent policy of the government.