' These are two counter-revision petitions and appeal against the order, dated 22-9-1982 of the Additional Commissioner (Rev.), Bahawalpur whereby he set aside the order of D.C./Collector Bahawalnagar dated 849.1982 vide which he had resumed at lot of Mast Alam Khan petitioner for non-payment of instalments. The Additional Commissioner (Rev.) vide his order, dated 22-9-1982 allowed Mast Alam Khan petitioner to deposit the outstanding amounts within one month and thus accepted the appeal of the petitioner against the order of D.C./Collector.
2. The facts of the case are that Mast Alam Khan petitioner was allottee of 24-A-4K. Of land under Qabaili Scheme in Chak No, 241/a/9-R Tehsil Fort Abbas. He did not deposit the instalments from Rabi 1974 to Rabi 1979 and the D.C./Collector on 2-3-1980 issued him a notice under section 24 of the Colony Act. The service was effected on 31-3-1980 upon Nazir Hussain Shah, General Attorney of Mast Alam Khan but Abdur Rashid the other General Attorney of Mast Alam Khan appeared in the Court on 13-4-1980 and afterwards absented himself. The outstanding amount was also not deposited. The District Collector vide his order, dated 25-8-1980 resumed the lot. In appeal the Additional Commissioner set aside the order and on 17-11-1980 remanded the case for hearing Mast Alam Khan and to decide the case afresh. Again notice was issued to Mast Alam Khan by the D.0 /Collector. His counsel was present but the outstanding amount was not paid and the land was again resumed on 21-1-1981. Again appeal was filed before the Additional Commissioner who set aside the order vide his order dated 4-7-1982 observing that notice under section 24 was not issued to Mast Alam Khan and directed that if he deposit the amount within two months the lot would be considered to have been restored. Mast Alam Khan did not comply with these instructions for the deposit of outstanding amount till 4-9-1982 when Ikhlaq Hussain Shah his special attorney applied to allow him to deposit the outstanding amount. The D.C./Collector, therefore, on 8-9-1982 observed that the land already stood cancelled as directed by the Additional Commissioner (Rev.) vide his order, dated 4-7-1982. Aggrieved by this order Mast Alam Khan filed an appeal before the Additional Commissioner (Rev.) his order, dated 22-9-1982 observing that as there was a public holiday on 3-9-1982 the amount could not be deposited and allowed him to deposit the outstanding amount within one month. Hence these counter-revision petition and appeal.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for Mast Alam Khan contended that the disputed land was allotted to him under Qabaili Scheme on permanent basis in year 1968 and proprietary rights were granted. He argued that the price of the land was to be paid in instalments, but due to some unavoidable circumstances he could not deposit the same.
He contended that without any notice under section 24 of the Colony Act the land was cancelled by the D.C./Collector but the Additional Commissioner restored the allotment and directed him to deposit the rent within two months. He stressed that he tried his best to deposit the outstanding amount but D.C. Collector, Bahawalnagar did not allow him to deposit the outstanding amount which was a clear violation of the order of the Additional Commissioner. He stressed that again his allotment was cancelled by the D.C./Collector but the Additional Commissioner again allowed him one month to deposit the dues but the D. C. Was not allowing him to deposit the dues and he approached the Additional Commissioner who allowed him to deposit the dues with one month which again was not allowed to be deposited by the D.C./ Collector. The learned counsel for the State contended that the proprietary rights were promised to the allottee under Qabaili Scheme subject to the conditions contained in Revenue Rehabilitation Department Notification No, Col- 2/54(1)-56, dated 25-6-1958. He argued that according to these terms and conditions the land was to be self-cultivated by the tenant and he had to take up his residence in the Chak, but constructing his own residential house on the site allotted to him within one year from the date of taking over the possession of the land. He argued that Mast Alam Khan neither took up his residence in the Chak nor self-cultivated the land but sold it out and all the proceeding before the D.C./Collector and the Additional Commissioner were carried out by his so-called Mukhtars. He contended that Mast Alam Khan was defaulter and did not plant any tree in the land as was required by the terms and conditions of allotment. He stressed that the possession of the land was taken over by the estate on 10-9-1982. He stressed that Additional Commissioner without considering the aspects of the case and without any notice to the State passed a void and illegal order on 22-9-1982 against the State by allowing Mast Alam Khan one month period to deposit the outstanding amount. He urged that the impugned order be set aside.
4. The Patwari stated that from 1971 to date the land in dispute was never self-cultivated by Mast Alam Khan but it was cultivated by different persons as his tenants. He stated that according to the entries of Register Haqdaran Zamin for the year 1979-80, Nazir Hussain Shah purchased the land orally from Mast Alam Khan and it was being cultivated by Muhammad Akhlaq Hussain Shah as tenant of Nazir Hussain Shah. The Patwari stated that Syed Muhammad Akhlaq Shah Mukhtar of Mast Alam Khan owned the land in the adjoining Chak but residing in this Chak.
5. The arguments had been heard on 15-2-1983 and the orders were reserved.
6. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, perused the record of the case and the provisions of the Scheme. It is evident that Mast Alam Khan did not comply with the terms and conditions of the allotment of taking up his residence in his Chak. It is also clear from the record of the Patwari that he did not self-cultivate the land but sold it away. Sufficient opportunity was given to him by the appellate Court to clear his outstanding dues but he failed. In tees circumstances of the case, Mast Alam Khan has no case and his revision petition is rejected. The impugned order of the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), dated 22-9-1982 is set aside and the order of the D.C./Collector, dated 8-9-1982 is upheld and thus the appeal of the State is allowed.