This is a revision petition against the order of the Commissioner Sargodha dated 20-12-1981 whereby he rejected the appeal of the petitioner against the order of Assistant Commissioner/Collector, Faisalabad, dated 29-10-1981 vide which he had rejected the application of the petitioner for the grant of proprietary rights, resumed the land and included it in the schedule of temporary cultivation on the ground that the application of proprietary rights of the petitioner was accepted on 9-12-1973 and the petitioner was allowed on 27-2-1981 to deposit 1/4th amount of the land within one month but he had not complied with the direction.
2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was an allottee of Sqr.. No,. 78/4 to 7, 14/1, 14/2, 15/1, 15/2 Sqr. No,. 79/1 to 3, 15 min, Sqr. No,. 80/6 min measuring 100 kanals situated in Chak No,. 240/RB Tehsil Faisalabad under "Grow More Food" Scheme. He was allowed to purchase the proprietary rights by the District Collector vide his order dated 9-12-1973 on the payment of Rs, 5,218 per acre.
He did not deposit the amount and the Assistant Commissioner/Collector summoned the petitioner who appeared before him on 27-9-1981 and was directed to deposit 1/4th of the sale price within one month otherwise the land would be forfeited. The petitioner instead of depositing the amount applied before the Assistant Commissioner on 26-10-1981 for the extension of further 2 months period. The Assistant Commissioner/Collector, vide his order dated 29-10-1981 resumed the land and ordered the recovery of overdue lagan. The appeal filed against this order before the Commissioner was rejected on 20-12-1981 on the ground that he delayed the deposit of price of land beyond 7 years from the date of order to grant him the proprietary rights. Hence this revision petition.
3. 1 have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length and perused the record of the ease, The learned counsel contended that the petitioner deposited the lagan uptodate and that he is still in possession of the land. He urged that he be allowed a period of one month to deposit 1/4th of the sale price and resumption order be set aside. The representative of the Department stated that the petitioner had not complied with the direction of the lower Courts and did not deposit the sale price in 7 years. He stated that the Board of Revenue is competent to allow the extension in period if he so likes.
4. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the case. The petitioner is certainly at fault for not depositing the price of the land for 8 years an even he did not comply with the direction of Assistant Commissioner Collector dated 27-9-1981 for the deposits of 1/4th of sale price within one month. However, if the entire lagan of the disputed lot stands deposited by the petitioner and he deposits all the outstanding price of land with interest/penal interest with a penalty of Rs, 100 within one month from the receipt of the order by the Assistant Commissioner/Collector or production of a copy of order by the petitioner whichever is earlier, and the land in dispute is still in his possession and has not been allotted/disposed of under any other scheme and that there is no other breach of condition except the non-payment of price of the land, the lot be restored to the petitioner, otherwise the resumption order would stand. The revision petition is thus disposed of.