' These five appeals have been filed against the order dated 20-3-1972 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Lahore whereby he set aside the order dated 25-5-1972 of the Collector, Sheikhupura and restored the allotments of State land under the Grow-More-Food Scheme in favour of the respondents.
2. The brief facts are that the respondents were allotted State land under the Grow-More-Food Scheme in Chak No,. 81/RB, Tehsil and District Shiekhupura. This land being situated within the prohibited belt, the respondents could not get proprietary rights over this land. In addition they also defaulted in the payment of rent. Accordingly the land was cancelled by the Collector on 14-3- 1968. In appeal the learned Commissioner directed the land to be restored if the respondents cleared the arrears of rent by 10-1-1969. As the respondents failed to do so, the land was cancelled by the Collector on 28-5-1969. This land being available for allotment was declared disposable under the 15 years lease scheme and was allotted to the petitioners on 25-5-1971. Afterward on the representation of the respondents the Collector allowed them to clear the arrears of rent and they paid the arrears on 5-8-1971. The respondents then challenged the allotment of land in favour of the petitioners before the Additional Commissioner who restored the allotment in favour of the respondents and directed that the petitioner be given some other land out of the surplus chiragah area in Chak No,. 81/RB. The present appeals are against this order.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the allotments of the respondents were cancelled by the Collector on 25-5-1969, and this order attained finality having remained unchallenged. The learned Collector could not allow the respondents to pay up the arrears of rent tantarnounting to restoration of their lots as this order ran counter to the order dated 10-2-1968 of the Additional Commissioner, who accepted the appeal of the respondents subject to payment of rent which they did not pay, and the cancellation order dated 14-3-1968 passed by the Collector had become final. It was further contended that the respondents live in Chak No,. 82/RB, where they also own End cultivate land. The learned counsel tried to make out the point that the disputed land not being under self-cultivation of the respondents and they being owners of land were not entitled to retain their lots in the prohibited belt of 5 miles from outer limits of Municipal Committee and get alternate land outside the prohibited belt. It was alleged that the real beneficiary was one No, or Muhammad who is uncle of the respondents. The learned counsel further argued that the possession of the land was witb the petitioners and they have caltivated in Rabi 1972.
4. Abdul Hamid respondent who was present admitted that Muhammad Rafique, Muhammad Saleem and Muhammad Ramzan respondents are his brothers and that their father owns land in Chak No,. 82/RB. He also admitted that Rabi 1972, was cultivated by the petitioners but on 7-4-1972, the respondent again got the possession under the orders of the Additional Commissioner. The Patwari of the circle was present with respondents on 7-4-1972.
5. Under the instructions, self-cultivation and possession of land less than 12i acres are the main conditions for grant of proprietary rights. According to memo. No,. 5086-69/1683-CL-111, dated 1-6- 1970 the allottees of Grow-More-Food Scheme in the prohibited belt are entitled to retain the possession of allotted land in the prohibited belt till allotment of alternative land outside the prohibited belt, provided they are otherwise entitled to get proprietary rights. In this case the petitioners have alleged that the respondents do not cultivate the land themselves and live in Chak No,. 82/RB where they own land. These are questions of facts, which have not been verified by the learned Additional Commissioner. Accordingly I remand all the five appeals to the Additional Commissioner for deciding the case afresh after hearing the parties and verifying the allegations of the petitioners. The appeals are disposed of accordingly.