' This is a revision petition against the order of Additional Commissioner evenue), Multan, dated 31- 7-1982 whereby he rejected the appeal of the petitioner the order of Assistant Commissioner/Collector, Vehari, dated 28424981- vide which he cancelled the lease of the petitioner for non-payment of sent for the year 198142 and against the order of District Collottor, dated 28-1-1982 vide which he allotted the disputed land to the respondent as alternate land under Grow More Food Scheme.
2. The facts of the case are that Sq. No,. 4/19 to 22, 9/20 was leased out to the petitioner from Khartf 1980 to Rabi 1985. The petitioner did not deposit the rent for the year 1981-82. The land was required to be allotted under permanent scheme. The Assistant Commissioner/Colleetor, vide his order, dated 28-12-1981 cancelled the lease. The District Collector vide his order, dated 28-1-1982 allotted this land to the respondent as alternate land under Grow More Food Scheme. Aggrieved by the order the petitioner filed an appeal before the Addl. Commissioner (Revenue) who observed that the land in dispute case on temporary cultivation with the petitioner and according to the condition of lease it could be cancelled at any time without any notice and the petitioner has acceded to it. The Additional Commissioner (Revenue) therefore vide his order, dated 31-7-1982 rejected 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 petitioner was not served with any notice either by the Assistant Commissioner/Collector or by the District Collector, cancelling the allotment of the petitioner and its further allotment to the respondent as alternate land under Grow More Food Scheme. He strossed that the respondent was not eligible for alternate allotment of the disputed land as he had been allotted some other land which had been possessed by him for a long period of 8 years and he could not abandon it for fresh allotment. He urged that the impugned orders be set aside.
The learned counsel for the respondent contended that according to the policy of Government only such persons could obtain the State land who were self-cultivators of any land and the petitioner being Government servant did not cultivate any land. Furthermore he remained out of the country for education purposes. He contended that he was entitled for the alternate allotment which was legally allotted to him. The colony clerk stated that Sher Muhammad patwari of the circle had reparsed on 24-6-1980 that the petitioner was tenant of Sqr. No,. 1/55 Sqr. No,. 2/21/1, Sqr.
No,. 3/4126/1 in Chak No,. 555/EB and that he was non-owner. The Patwari stated that according to the Khasra Girdawari the petitioner was entered as tenant in Kharif 1979, and Rabi 1980 in Sqr. No,.
1125, Sqr. No,. 2/21/1, Sqr. No,. 3/4/25/6/1 under Abdul Karim a share-holder.
4. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case as well as of the colony clerk and the patwari. The petitioner could not deny that he remained out of the country for Education purposes and that he was a Government servant now. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that he was a tenant of the land. Anyhow the Girdawari was wrongly made in his name and thus he was not entitled to take part in the auction. The revision petition thus has no force and is hereby rejected. It should, however, be accertained as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether the respondent was already holding another allotment under Grow More Food Scheme and that after 8 years of that allotment he has now managed to obtain allotment, and if it is found to be correct the allotment made in his favour should be cancelled. It should also be examined that according to the recent policy latter as to whether the alternate allotment was correctly made. The disputed land be re-auctioned thereafter according to provision of law.