' This is a revision petition against the order of Commissioner, Faisalabad dated 841-1982 whereby he dismissed the appeal of the petitioner against the order of the Assistant Commissioner/Collector, Faisalabad dated 6-3-1982 vide which he resumed Square No,. 82/11/2 to 16/2, 17 to 24 measuring 99 Kanals 18 Marlas situated in Chak No,. 42/JB, Tehsil and District Faisalabad which was allotted to the petitioner under Livestock Breeding Scheme.
2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was allottee of the land under Pedigree Livestock Breeding Scheme. According to the condition of scheme the allottee had to maintain one Buff Bull and 15 Sheep and to grow Fodder Crops and maintain shed, etc. For the rearing of the said animals.
The Colony Assistant/Collector, issued notice to the petitioner for the breach of condition of the lease. The Colony Assistant Collector, after hearing the petitioner observed that although sufficient time was given to the petitioner to make up the deficiency yet he failed to fulfil the condition of the scheme. The Colony Assistant/Collector observed that once before the land was resumed from the Lambardar and its possession was delivered to some other party. The petitioner succeeded in appeal but instead of legal recourse, he forcibly obtained the possession of the land. The Colony Assistant/Collector therefore resumed the lot from the petitioner vide his order dated 28-4-1981.
The petitioner again filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Sargodha who vide his order dated 17-8-1981 remanded the case to Assistant Commissioner/ Collector, Faisalabad for fresh decision and to decide whether the petitioner had complied with the terms and conditions of the lease eversince he obtained it in 1966. The Assistant Commissioner/Collector on the remand of the case after hearing the parties observed that the land bad already been allotted to the respondents under a permanent scheme and it would not be proper to disturb their allotment without any justification as the petitioner did not comply with the terms and conditions of lease. Aggrieved by this order the petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Faisalabad who had appointed the Revenue Officer as Commission to verify the fact at the spot. The Commission reported that the petitioner was not maintaining the requisite number of Bull and Sheep and the petitioner failed to rebut the report of the Commission. The Commissioner, therefore, dismissed the appeal. Hence this revision petition.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the land was leased out to the petitioner under Pedigree Livestock Breeding Scheme as a Lambardar for a period of ten years up to Rabi 1976, which was renewable under the Scheme. He argued that the scheme was suspended vide Board of Revenue Memo. No,. 908-72/ 1043-C-V, dated 31-3-1972 and status quo was maintained in respect of these allotments vide Circular Letter No,.
7378.74/5322-CV, dated 9-11-1974 and thus the land was not available for allotment to the respondents. He stressed that the lease was cancelled on the allegation that the petitioner was not maintaining the Buff Bull and 15 Sheep. He contended that this allegation has neither been proved from the record nor supported by the Assistant Director, Livestock and Dairy Department and as against this the petitioner had submitted report No,. 36, dated 20-3-1968 and No,. 521, dated 26-6- 1973 from the Assistant Director Livestock Farm Kalra, Sargodha that the petitioner did purchase the Bulls. He stressed that the Veterinary Officer (Health) Incharge Civil Veterinary Hospital bad issued a certificate that the petitioner was maintaining Bull and 15 Sheep at the time the land was resumed. He argued that no notice under section 24 of the Colony Act was served upon the petitioner which was a must and thus the petitioner was condemned unheard by the Assistant Commissioner/Collector. He argued that while rejecting the appeal of the petitioner the Commissioner has weighed the report of the Commission, wherein he had reported that the petitioner was not maintaining the required number of bull and sheep, although this report was against facts. The petitioner had purchased the required number of animals and the Incharge Civil Veterinary Hospital had issued a certificate for this. He contended that he was still in possession of the land. He argued that the Commissioner has failed to appreciate the factual and legal points involved and wrongly decided the case and that the impugned order be set aside. The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that Nuqra one of the respondents has since died and his heirs be impleaded as respondents.
4. The learned counsel for the respondents contended Nuqra had since died on 13-3-1977 and the revision petition has been filed on 29-11-1982 against a deceased person which could not run nor his heirs can be impleaded as a party at this stage. He contended that the respondents were allotted the land out of Squares Nos, 87 and 88 in Chak No,. 42/JB in the year, 1957 and after the cancellation of this area he was declared eligible for the allotment of alternate land. He argued that the disputed land had since been cancelled from the petitioner and it was allotted to the respondents by the Colony Assistant/Collector and its possession was delivered to them. He argued that the revision petition be dismissed.
5. The Colony Clerk stated that the respondents were declared eligible for the allotment of alternate land under Grow More Food Scheme by the Deputy Commissioner/Collector on 31-10- 1974. He stated that the disputed land which was with the petitioner under Pedigree Livestock Breeding Scheme was cancelled from his name for non-fulfilment of terms and conditions of lease and thereafter allotted to the respondents. The Patwari of the circle stated that the disputed land was leased out to the petitioner under Pedigree Livestock Breeding Scheme for 10 years from Kharif 1966 to Rabi 1976 and mutation No,. 272 to this effect was sanctioned in his favour and he continued to cultivate the land up to Rabi 1982.
6. I have considered the arguments of the parties and perused the record. It is evident from the record that the disputed land was reserved for Lambardar and was leased out to the petitioner in year 1966 under Pedigree Livestock Breeding Scheme. The areas reserved for Lambardari grant are not to disposed of under any other Scheme. The petitioner is a Lambardar and the Alice of the Government is that the Lambardars be provided land under the Scheme. The record shows that the petitioner remained in continuous possession of the land since its lease in his favour. The lease was cancelle for the breach of condition of lease. He is, therefore, imposed a penalty o Rs, 100 and directed to fulfil the conditions of lease and his lease is restored.
' The impugned orders are set aside. The Deputy Commissioner/Collector should see that in future the petitioner abide by the condition of lease, The case of the respondents be considered and if they are entitled for alternate land they be provided some other available land. The possession of the land be delivered to the petitioner after the Rabi 1983 crop is harvested by the respondents which is stated to had been shown by them. The revision petition is thus disposed of.