This is a revision petition against the order (memo. No, S-5-65-Dev/68, dated 30-3-70) of the Commissioner Khairpur whereby he remitted the Remokal fine levied against the petitioner for the year 1966-67, only.
2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner held survey Nos, 262 to 267, 270, 272 to 277, 279 to 289 of Deh Sharatabad, Taluka Jacobabad, under rice restricted tenure. He cultivated the land without permission and the survey numbers were forfeited to Government during the year 1964-65. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the order of forfeiture of his lands to the Additional Commissioner, Khairpur.
3. The land was cultivated during the year 1965-66 and the petitioner was penalised for unauthorised cultivation of Government land to the extent of Rs, 4,846.26. The petitioners appeal against forfeiture of his land for unauthorised cultivation of the year 1964-65 was rejected by the Additional Commissioner, Khairpur vide order dated 13-12-1966, but the Additional Commissioner directed that the land may be restored to the petitioner on payment of Malkana equal to 1 assessm ent. The case for restoration of the land to the petitioner remained pending between the Barrage authorities and the Additional Commissioner and finally the land was restored to the petitioner by the Barrage authorities on 17-9-1969. In the meantime the petitioner had raised cultivation in the disputed land during 1966-67 also and he was penalised to the extent of Rs, 4167/24 for the same.
4. The petitioner represented that the order for restoration of land had been passed by Additional Commissioner, Khairpur, on 13-12-1966 and he was prepared to pay 1 assessment but it was due to the fault of the Barrage authorities that the land was restored to him as late as 1969 and that the penalty imposed upon him for 1965-66 and 1966-67 was not justified. The Commissioner, Khairpur vide the impugned letter only remitted the fine for the year 1966-67 on the ground that the orders for the restoration of the land'were passed by the Additional Commissioner on 13-12-1966.
5. The petitioner mainly contended that he had no knowledge about the restrictions on the land and that since he had paid the malkana and the land had been restored to him, the penalty for the year 1965-66 may also be remitted.
6. I have considered the arguments put forth by the petitioner and seen the record. The land has been restored to the petitioner under para. 10 of Part I, Section A of Standing Order No,
10. The first point involved in the case is whether the restoration will be with retrospective effect from the date of forfeiture of the grant or it will take effect from a later date. In case the restoration will be with retrospective effect then no penalty would be levied against the petitioner for the period intervening the forfeiture and the restoration of the grant but in the other case, the petitioner would be liable to penalty for the intervening period.
7. According to para. 10 of Section A, Part I of the Standing Order No, 10, land forfeited for breach of condition of rice restriction can be restored on recovery of malkana according to the following scales:-- {{TABLE}} First offence 1 assessments Second offence 3 assessments Third offence 5 assessmented Fourth offence 6 to 8 assessmednts or permanent forfeiture {{TABLE}} The word 'restoration' ordinarily connotes restoration of the old grant but I am afraid it has not been used in its strict sense in the Standing Order No,
10. In para. 10-B of Section B of Part I of Standing Order No, 10, governing restoration policy, after the word 'restoration' word 'retrospectively' is added, which makes it clear that there is a difference in the words 'restoration' and 'restoration retrospectively' and that the mere word 'restoration' does not mean restoration with retrospective effect. Besides the intention of the orders is also quite clear. The policy of rice and imposing of rice restrictions are to deter the khatedars from cultivating rice in the land. The land is liable to be forfeited to Government due to the infringement of the condition and thereafter the cultivation of the land is liable to penalty ranging from 1 assessment to the forfeiture of the crop plus a penalty to the extent of two assessm ents if the land is cultivated with rice. If the restoration of the land as envisaged in para. 10 would mean restoration with retrospective effect, obviously the purpose of providing the penalty of forfeiture of the land would be frustrated and all the penalties imposed thereafter even before the restoration would also have to be written off. This can hardly be the intention of the orders.
8. In the present case, the Additional Commissioner, Khairpur passed an order on 13-12-1966 directing that the land may be restored to the petitioner but the land was actually restored to him vide order dated 17-9-1969. Ordinarily the restoration should have taken effect from 17-9-69 the date on which the actual restoration took place but in this case since the Additional Commissioner had passed an order for restoration earlier and the delay was not on account of any fault on the part of the petitioner, the lenient view that could be taken was that the cultivation raised prior to the order of the Additional Commissioner could only be treated, as unauthorised. Consequently the cultivation for the year 1965-66 was unauthorised and the petitioner has rightly been penalized.
9. The other question in this case is that the petitioner was penalized to the extent of Rs, 4846.26 during the year 1965-66 and Rs, 4,167,24 during the year 1966-67. Ordinarily the fine for the second offence 1. e. for the year 1966-67 in this case should have been higher than the fine for first offence i,e, for the year 1965-66. It is not known on what basis the fine was worked out and how the fine for the year 1966.67 was less than that of the year 1965.66. Either the land brought under cultivation during 1966-67 was less than that brought under cultivation during the year 1965-66 or the fine had not been correctly levied in either of the two years. The fine levied against the petitioner should, therefore, be worked out correctly by the Deputy Commissioner, Jacobabad, in light of the above and the total fine levied against the petitioner for the year 1965-66 should not be more than 3 assessm ent--l2 assessm ent for removal and 2 assessments for rice cultivation--that being his first offence after forfeiture of the land and if the fine levied is liable to be reduced on that account, it is ordered to be reduced accordingly.
10.The revision petition is dismissed with the above observations.
11.The parties should be informed of the order.