This is a revision petition against the order dated 21-5-1969 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Hyderabad, whereby he rejected the petitioner's appeal in respect of remokal fine amounting to Rs, 3044.74 for unauthorised cultivation of nakabuli B. Nos, 82, 116, 126, 128, 129, 133, 135, 137, 138, 141, 152, 154, 158 and 159 deh No, 306, Taluka Jamesabad for kharif 1966-67.
2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner had been penalized to the above extent by the Deputy Collector, Mirpurkhas. The petitioner's appeal against it was rejected by the Deputy Commissioner, Tharparkar, vide his order dated 16-9-1968. The petitioner preferred an appeal, which was rejected by the Additional Commissioner, Hyderabad vide the impugned order.
3. The case was partly heard by me on 16-10-1970. The counsel for the petitioner had contended that the disputed land had been purchased by Mr. A. Farooq and Mst. Nasim Bano Begum under the scheme framed for disposal of land surrendered under Martial Law Regulations 89/91 and the petitioner had taken up lease of the land from the above grantees and was in possession of the land since 1961-62 as lessee of the lands. He had further contended that the grants of the claimant-purchasers had been cancelled in September 1966, but he had raised the kharif 1966-67 crop in the land much earlier than the cancellation of their grants. He had argued that under these circumstances, cancellation of the grants, when the crop had already been sown, would be effective from the next crop and as such the imposition of the penalty for the crop of kharif 1966-67 was unjustified.
4. The counsel had requested for time to produce the orders of the former Revenue Commissioner for Sind on the point that the grant could not be cancelled during the time the crop was standing and also to produce the lease deed by Mr. A. Farooq and Mst. Nasim Bano Begum in favour of the petitioner. He was given the time but he showed his inability to produce the order and the lease deed as asserted by him earlier and stressed that it was unjustified to cancel the grants during the period the crop was standing.
5. I have considered the arguments put forth by the counsel and seen the record. The grants of Mr. A. Farooq and Mst. Nasim Bano Begum were cancelled by the Deputy Commissioner, Tharparkar vide his order No, REH 1408/66, dated 2-9-1966 and No, 1413/66, dated 2-9-1966, respectively on account of failure to pay the instalments. The notices were served on the said purchasers on 15-8- 1965. The petitioner now claims that he was lessee of the above purchasers but he has not been able to produce any document in support of his claim. No such lease is entered in the revenue records. The petitioner had not raised the plea of being lessee of the purchasers before the lower authorities and there he had denied having raised the cultivation. In absence of any registered lease deed and in view of the fact that the petitioner had not raised the plea before the lower authorities, I am not inclined to accept that the petitioner was in lawful possession of the land through the above purchasers. In any case, the notice for cancellation was served on the purchasers on 15-8-65, which was much before the preparation period of kharif crop of 1966-67.
Since the purchasers had failed to clear the arrears before sowing the kharif crop, they had pre- knowledge that the sale was liable for cancellation and in the result any cultivation raised with the knowledge by the purchasers or any A body through them was unauthorised. Their act of cultivating the land in kharif 1966-67 was wilful and mala fide and the cultivation had rightly been penalized.
6. The date of cancellation order is immaterial. It is the date from which the sale became liable for cancellation which is relevant. Since the date of default was 15-8-1965, which was intimated by notice, the order of cancellation became operative from 15-8-1965 although the cancellation order itself was issued much later i,e, 2-9-1966 just to give reasonable opportunity to the defaulter to liquidate the arrears and get his cancelled sale restored. Accordingly the cancellation order was operative with effect from kharif 1966-67 and in that the question of sowing the crop or harvesting it does not arise.
7. Same policy applies to cancellation of grants of State lands in Barrage zones. In that grants are first provisionally cancelled for non-payment of instalments on due dates. Thereafter notices are issued to the defaulters to pay the instalments due by 31st December. In case of defaults, such grants are finally cancelled and the cultivation raised during the period from the date of default of instalments is treated as unauthorised.
8. In view of the above facts, the orders of the lower authorities are justified in the circumstances of the case. There is no merit in the revision petition, which is, therefore, dismissed accordingly.
9. The petitioner may be informed of the order.