' The petitioners were granted State land under Sara Scheme for a period of three years in 1956.
According to the terms of the lease the petitioners were required to bring under cultivation at least 80 per cent of the land and in the event of such an achievement they could apply for the grant of proprietary rights to the extent of half of the lease-bold the other half to be surrendered to the State. In the present case the petitioner failed to bring under cultivation the requisite area within the period of tenancy. The period was extended by the orders of the Collector to give them a further opportunity for bringing the land under cultivation to the requisite standard but the petitioners failed to do so even then. The Collector vide his order dated 15th April, 1964 proceeded to resume the land after holding that the petitioner had cultivated only 17.69 per cent of land instead of 80 per cent. Required under the terms of the agreement. He held that the petitioners were not eligible to retain the land or to the grant of proprietary rights. These orders were challenged in appeal before the Additional Commissioner who dismissed the appeal on 4th june, 1965. The revision in the Hoard of Revenue met with the same fate when the revision petition was dismissed on 10th November, 1967. The petitioners are in the High Court since then. In the meantime the land after resumption has been allotted to respondent No, 5 and even the proprietary rights have been granted to him through a sale-deed executed and registered on 1st November, 1973.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that under clause 17-8 of the terms of agreement the petitioners had a right to be heard by the Director, Land Reclamation before he could report the matter to the Collector for the resumption of land. He has also argued that even the Collector could not resume the land without following the procedure laid down in section 24 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act. The learned counsel has also argued that the petitioners have been discriminated against inasmuch as two others lease-holders of the same village have been allowed proprietary rights even though they have cultivated only 30 per cent of the land.
3. As regards the discriminating treatment the learned Assistant Advocate-General has produced a list of 41 cases of Muzaffargarh Tehsil in which the leases were resumed on similar facts. Even in the petitioners' village out of lease-holds there have been resumed including that of the petitioners although it is correct that after the award by the Arbitrator, who was the Commissioner in this case, proprietary right have been given to two others, but this clearly shows no discrimination against the petitioners.
4. As regards the merits of the case even the best estimates of the petitioners show cultivation of 76 per cent of the land which is still below 80 per cent required. For this purpose he relies on the reports of the Patwari while on the other hand the inspection conducted by the Reclamation Officer, Multan and the Revenue Assistant, Muzaffargarh shows that the petitioners cultivated only 30 per cent of the land. The Land Reclamation Officer had otherwise reported the cultivation only of 17.6' per cent. In view of this evidence the opinion of the Collector that the petitioners had not fulfilled the condition of cultivation of 80 per cent of the land is, therefore, justified and not open to question. As regards the procedure provided for in clause 17 (b), I am afraid the emphasis on this clause is misplaced. Clause 7 (b) of the terms and conditions of the lea shows that the proprietary rights could be granted on the satisfaction o the Land Reclamation Officer regarding cultivation of the requisite area. Even otherwise the penal provision of section 24 of Colonization of Government Lands Act and of clause 17 (b) of the condition application to the present case are attracted only during the continuance of the lease. In the present case the lease had expired and the petitioners were bound to surrender the possession peacefully on the expiry of the lease under para. 20 of the conditions. In view of the above considerations the orders of revenue authorities do not call for interference. The writ petition is dismissed with costs.
Petit ion dismissed.