' This is a revision petition against the order, dated 7-1-1972 passed by Addl. Commissioner, Khairpur Division whereby he rejected the appeal of the petitioner in respect of Remokal fine imposed on him for raising unauthorized cultivation in S. Nos. 317/2, 3 of Deh Mohil, Taluka Khairpur during Rah! 1970-71.
2. The facts of the case in brief, are that S. Nos. 317/2, 3 of Deh Mobil, Taluka Khairpur were granted to the petitioner on permanent tenure and he has been paying the instalments regularly. The grant of the petitioner was cancelled for non-payment of instalments from Rabi-1970-71 and the cultivation raised during that period was treated as unauthorised by the D.C., Khairpur and he was penalised accordingly, being dissatisfied with the imposition of fine, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Addl. Commissioner, Khairpur Division who after hearing the petitioner and perusing the relevant record rejected the appeal of the, petitioner, vide the impugned order. Hence this revision.
3. The petitioner mainly contends that S. Nos. 317/2, 3 of Deh Mohil, Taluka Khairpur were granted to him on permanent tenure in the year 1966 and the purchase price of land was being paid by way, of instalments. Before cancellation of his grant during the year 1970-71 he moved Barrage authorities to adjust excess amount recovered from him vide receipt Rs, 2439, dated 10-5-1969 towards the instalments of his running grant but the said amount was not adjusted and the result was that his grant was cancelled. The petitioner further contends that before penalizing he was not served with show-cause notice, which according to the policy is mandatory.
4. I have given due consideration to the arguments put forth by the petitioner and have also gone through the record produced by Munshi Nazar Muhammad, Tapedar, Taluka Khairpur. Also perused report, dated 11-12-1974 of B.M., Khairpur. Its perusal shows that he had credited Rs, 250 towards initial deposit for purchase of S. Nos. 298/1, 4, 7 and 16 of Deb Mohil, Taluka Khairpur on 10-5-1960.
Subsequently S. Rs, 317/2, 3 of the same Deh was purchased by the petitioner during the year 1967- 68 and he paid Rs, 310- as initial deposit. The petitioner has been paying the instalments regularly but in 1970-71, the above grant was cancelled for non-payment of instalment and the cultivation raised during that period was treated as unauthorised. On verification of the record viz. Remokal Form etc. It was observed that the petitioner was not served with show-cause notice as required by the mandatory provision of land grant policy before penal action was taken against the petitioner.
Tapedar of the beat, who had served the notice has written on 28-9-1971 that petitioner refused to receive the notice but he had neglected to observe the provisions of section 24 of W.P. Land Revenue Act, 1967 which A provides that if service cannot be affected or if the acceptance of service of notice is refused, the summons or notices could be served by affixing a copy thereof at the usual or last known place of residence of the person to whom it is addressed.
5. In view of the above legal position I am fully convinced that the proper procedure as laid down in the policy as well as in section 24 of W. P. Land Revenue Act, for taking penal action against the petitioner has not been followed. Mere writing of a word "refused to receive" does not serve the purpose. It was primary duty of the Tapedar or a serving agency to follow the rules properly.
Accordingly, the Additional Commissioner, as well as the D.C. Were not justified in penalising the petitioner B for raising unauthorised cultivation without proper scrutiny of the record. Consequently I accept the revision petition, set aside the impugned order and remand the case to D. C., Khairpur for fresh decision on merits.