' These are for counter-revision petitions against the order of the Additional Commissioner (Revenue) Multan, dated 7-9-1981, whereby he accepted the appeals of Aftab Ahmad Khan, Muhammad Akhtar and Rehmat Ullah, against the order of Assistant/ Commissioner/Collector, Vehari, dated 10-5-1981 and 18-6-1981 and directed that the disputed land be disposed of in accordance with notification dated 3-9-1979.
2. The facts of the case are that Lot No,. 4 comprising Khasra Nos, 40/2 to 4, 7 to 9;12 to 17 measuring 71 Kanals 16 Marlas Lot No,. 6, comprising Square No,. 51/1 to 5, 6/1, 7/1, 8/1, 9/1, 10/1, measuring 34 Kanals 1 Marla (Charagah land) situated in Chak No,. 168/E. B., were leased out on temporary cultivatiozr for 2 years from Rabi B. O. R. In open auction by the Assistant Commissioner/Collector, Vehari, on 19-2-1981 to Muhammad Jamil. The file was sent to the District Collector along with other files for the approval of the auction but he did not approve the auction and directed on 29-11-1981 for the re-auction of lots. There was a stay order in respect of this land issued by the Civil Court, Vehari which was vacated on 10-5-1981. The Assistant Commissioner/Collector, Vehari, on 10-5-1981 in anticipation of the approval of auction by the Deputy Commissioner/Collector issued order for the delivery of possession of Lot No,. 6 to Muhammad Jamil who had deposited the rent for the first year. As regards Lot No,. 4, it was leased out on 19-2-1981 when there was a stay order from the Civil Court, but on the production of copy of stay order on 22-2-1981 the auction was cancelled. On the expiry of status quo order the Assistant Commissioner/Collector, Vehari, vide his order dated 17-6- 1981, with the permission of the Deputy Commissioner reviewed his earlier order dated 22-2-1981 and restored the auction of Lot No,. 4 in favour of Muhammad Jamil, allowed him to deposit the amount and issued order on 18-6-1981 to deliver him the possession of Lot No,.
4. The possession of Lot No,. 4 was delivered to Muhammad Jamil on 20-6-1981 vide Report No,.
385. Aggrieved by the orders dated 10-5-1981 and 18-6-1981 Aftab Ahmad Khan, Muhammad Akhtar and Rehmat Ullah filed appeals before the Additional Commissioner (Revenue) who accepted these and remanded the case to the Assistant Commissioner/Collector, Vehari, with the direction to dispose of the land in accordance with the instructions contained in No,tification dated 3-9-1979.
Hence these for counter-revision petitions.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for Aftab Ahmad Khan, Muhammad Akhtar and Rehmat Ullah contended that they were the sitting lessees of lot No,. 4 (71 Kanals 16 Marlas) and Lot No,. 6 (34 Kanals 1 Marla) Charagah land for the last more than ten years and the lease of the land in dispute had been extended in their favour on payment of enhanced rent till Rabi, 1980. However, in accordance with the instructions of the Government contained in Memorandum No,. 8337/79/ 593-CLI, dated 7-2-1980, such tenancies (Charagah Land) were ordered to be given on temporary cultivation lease through open auction for a period of two years instead of keeping these with the previous lessees by extending their leases. Accordingly these lots were put to auction without making any publicity and were given to Muhammad Jamil through fictitious auction. He contended that due to this illegality and fictitious auction, the Deputy Commissioner/Collector, did not accord approval and directed for re-auction of these lots. But before the re-auction could take place the Board of Revenue on 3.6-1981 issued a Teleprinter Message No,. 5322/81/1657-CLI, for not disturbing the possession of the sitting lessees of the Charagah lands. It was followed by policy instructions contained in Memorandum No,. 5322-81/.
2053-CU, dated 30-7-1981 vide which the leases were to be regularized in favour of the sitting lessees and were to be extended up to Rabi, 1983. It was argued that Assistant Commissioner/Collector, Vehari (Malik Mumtaz) instead of acting in accordance with the aforesaid intstructions in total disregard and contravention of the same in the presence of the stay order issued by the Board of Revenue not only treated the possession of Aftab Ahmad, etc. As unauthorised but also ordered the ejectment of Aftab Ahmad and Muhammad Akhtar. From Lot No,. 4 on 18.6-1981 in pursuance of which they were dispossessed on 2-6-1981. He argued that those instructions coupled with the fact that the auction in favour of Muhammad Jamil was not approved by the Deputy Commissioner/Collector, no right whatsoever could be accorded in his favour and he has no locus standi to agitate the matter and his petition before this Court is not maintainable. The learned counsel for Muhammad Jamil contended that he obtained the land in dispute . On lease in open auction and was delivered the possession of Lot No,. 4 only under order of Assistant Commissioner/Collector on 20-6-1981. However, it was conceded that the auction was not approved by the Deputy Commissioner/Collector. With regard to the delivery of possession to Muhammad Jamil in the presence of the stay order of the Board of Revenue through the teleprinter message dated 3-6-1981, he contended that it might had not been received in the office. He further alleged that Aftab Ahmad, etc. Petitioners in R.
0. R. No,. 2495/1981 had not challenged the auction proceeding before any competent Court. The Patwari of the circle stated that the disputed land was Charagah land. In Kharif, 1982 Muhammad Jamil was shown as illegal occupant of the land. The Colony Clerk stated that the auction of Muhammad Jamil was not approved by the Deputy Commissioner/ Collector.
4. I have considered the arguments of both the parties and persuel the record of the case as well as the record of the Patwari and the Colon Clerk. There is dispute to the facts that Aftab Ahmad, Muhammad Akhta and Rebmat Ullah petitioners in R.
0. R. No,. 2494 and 2495/1981 were in self-cultivating possession of the land being its lessees and their leases accordin to the instructions of Government contained in Board of Revenue letter No,.
5322-81 2053-CLI, dated 30-7-1981, are to be regularised from Kharif 1980 to Rabi 1981 on payment of 10% increase over the rent paid in year 1979-80 and further extension from Kharif 1981 to Rabi 1983 is to be give on payment of 20% increase over the rent paid in year 1980-81 and such sanction is allowed to Aftab Ahmad, Muhammad Akhtar and Rehmat Ullah provided they fulfil the other condition contained in the aforesaid instructions. These revision petitions are, therefore, accepted.
It is a fact that the auction of Muhammad Jamil was not approved by the Deputy Commissioner/ Collector, and he could not take over the possession of the land and the Assistant Commissioner/Collector, illegally issued the warrant of possession. The plea of Muhammad Jamil that at the time when he took possession of the land Teleprinter Message dated 34-1981, might not have been received in the office carries no weight. Rather the Assistant Commissioner/Collector, on 18-6-1981 passed an illegal and void order for the delivery of possession particularly when the Teleprinter Message had already been issued on 3-6-1981, not to disturb the possession of the existing lessees and the auction was not approved. The proper course for the Assistant Commissioner/ Collector, would have been to regularise the extension of the leases in favour of Aftab Ahmad, etc. Till Rabi 1983. The revision petitions of Muhammad Jamil are, therefore, rejected.
Muhammad Jamil had already been rightly recorded as illicit ,cultivator during Kharif 1982 and should be ejected forthwith, and possession of Lot No,. 4 be handed over to the existing lessees (Aftab Ahmad and Muhammad Akhtar) and the rent be got deposited from them within a month from the receipt of the order by the Assistant Commissioner/Collector in accordance with the instructions dated 3-7-1981. Their possession in Rabi 1981, therefore, cannot be considered as illegal and it would be taken as legal one. If any amount has been recovered from them as tawan that should be considered to have been adjusted as rent for the harvests 1. e. From Kharif 1980. As regards Lot No,. 6 it is in cultivating possession of Rehmat Ullah in a legal manner, his lease period is regularised and extension from Kharif 1980 to Rabi 1983 is allowed as discussed above and the rent be got deposited from him within one month from the receipt of the order by the Assistant Commissioner/Collector, in accordance with the instructions dated 30-7-1981, after adjusting the amount already received from him as tawan for Rabi 1981. The Assistant Commissioner/Collector, should implement the order and dispose of the standing crops, if any, according to Government instructions and orders, of Lot No,.
4.