' This is. a time-barred revision petition against the order of the Additional Commissioner (Revenue) Multan dated 13-2-1983 whereby he dismissed the time-barred, appeal of the petitioner against the order of A. C./Collector, Vehari, dated 2-9-1970 Vide which he directed the petitioner to clear the arrears by 2-10-1970 (but was incorrectly observed by the Additional Commissioner that he did not allow, the proprietary rights to the petitioner) of Rectangle No, 36/4.1., 2. 3, 9, 10. 11, 12. 19, 20, 21 and Rectangle No, 31/11, 10, 11 measuring 7 Acres 3 Kanals 18 Merles situated in Chak No, 523/E.
B., Tehsil
2. The facts of the ease are that the -disputed land Vat allotted to the petitioner under Co- operative Farming- Scheme. He defaulted in payment and the A:C./CoklectOr, Multan vide his order; dated 2546-1966 resumed the lot and directed that the possession of land be taken over alongwith standing crops and the deft tilted rent be recovered as arrears of land revenue. The lot was thereafter restored by the.. A C./Collector on 6-3-1967. Again on 2-9-1970 it was resumed by the A. C./Collector. Aggrieved by this order the petitioner filed time-barred appeal before . The Additional Commissioner which was dismissed. Hence this time-barred revision petition.
3. I have heard the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the order of A.
C./Collector, dated 2-9-1970 was passed behind the back of the petitioner and without hearing him and . Thus no limitation could run from the date of order but was to run from the date of knowledge. He contended that he was paying the rent and was in cultivating possession of the land. He contended that he was prepared to pay the rent if any was due against him. He argued that the Additional Commissioner passed an improper order. He urged that he be allowed the proprietary rights.
4. The Colony Clerk stated that the petitioner had fulfilled the conditions of lease but has not yet cleared the dues and as such no order for grant of Proprietary Rights was passed. He stated that no final order was passed on 2-9-1970 by the A. C./Collector to declare the petitioner eligible or ineligible to obtain the Proprietary Rights.
5. The Patwari stated that the petitioner was in self-cultivating possession of the land till its allotment. The Manager of the Society stated that the Society had passed resolution on 31-10-1982 that there was no objection if the Proprietary Rights are allowed to Dara.
6. 1 have considered the arguments and comments received from the Deputy Commissioner and perused the record of the case. The A. C./Collector on 2-9-1970 had passed order that the petitioner should clear his arrears upto 2-10-1970. In these orders neither the a allotment was cancelled nor any direction for the resumption of possession was passed. It is no" 4 known how the petitioner filed appeal considering this order to be order for the refusal of grant of Proprietary Rights. The Additional Commissioner also did not appreciate the facts and even he did not care to examine the record and passed improper order. The revision is allowed to the extent that the case of the petitioner for the grant of Proprietary Rights be examined in the light of the Government instructions and necessary orders passed.