' The case has been taken up in exercise of my revisional jurisdiction under section 30 (2) of the Colony Act read with section 164 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967.
2. The facts of the case are that Mst. Sabira Khatoon a refugee from Muradabad (India) was allotted on 9-8-1961 an area of 1,761 Kanals 13 Marlas in village Khauri at R. L. 11 No, 223 against her Q.
P. R. Entitlement. The allotment was later on cancelled on 15-9-1961. Such lands were allowed to be purchased under the Scheme by the allottees or their tenants if they so desired. The allottee did not opt to purchase. The respondent applied on 27-2-1962 to purchase the land claiming to be the lessee under Mst. Sabira Khatoon. The Patwari on 24-6-1962 reported that ljaz Bajwa was in possession of land measuring 868 Kanals, 12 Marlas equal to 6,481 P. I. Units as a lessee under Mst.
Sabira Khatoon for a period of eight years and was entitled to purchase this land out of the land surrendered by Sabira Khatoon. The L. C./Collector accorded permission on 2-2-1963. Ijaz Ahmad defaulted payment and show-cause notice was issued to him on 15-2-1968 and thereafter on his application extension in payment for the remaining instalments was allowed on 21-2-1968.
3. The Secretary (Land Utilization) of the defunct Board of Revenue West Pakistan carried out an inspection of village Khauri on 24-10-19o8 and sent a copy of his inspection note to the D.
C./Collector, Sheikhupura to thoroughly probe into the case. The Secretary (Land Utilization) in the Inspection Note pointed out that ljaz Ahmad respondent applied on 27-2-1962 for the purchase of the entire land on the ground that he was lessee of the area although in his application dated 20- 8-1962 he mentioned himself to be lessee of 223 Kanals. It was further pointed out that the order of Deputy Settlement Commissioner (Lands), dated 2-2-1943 was suspicious and that the respondent had deposited two instalments towards the price of land on 29-12-1962 two months before the permission to sell was given on 2-2-1963. The Inspection note made reference to the forged and tampered entries against Khasra Nos. 857 to 960 where the name of ljaz Ahmad had been added by tampering with the record. The Inspection note referred to letter No, 3060.62/3357-SGIV, dated 29-9-1962 stating that a lessee was not entitled to purchase the land as he was not a "Sitting Tenant". According to the Inspection note even if the forged entries in the Khasra Girdawari were to be accepted and even if it was held that the lessee was entitled to purchase the land, they were two persons, namely ljaz Hussain and Nawab Din son of Roshan and ljaz Hussain could not purchase the entire land even if the other co-lessee did not apply. Muhammad Ashraf son of Ibrahim had also filed a complaint against ljaz Ahmad Bajwa before the then Minister Revenue and Colonies that he purchased the land surrendered under M. L. R. 89/91 through fraud. The Minister entrusted the enquiry to D. C./Collector, Sheikhuoura. The D. C. Entrusted the enquiry to the A. D. C.
(C), Sheikhupura, who reported that floor Din Patwari with the connivance of Ijaz Ahmad Bajwa made a wrong report to give worn ful benefit to Ijaz Ahmad Bajwa by committing fraud, forgery and tampering with public record with common interest of the both. The D. C./Collector got a case registered under sections 420/468 and 4310, P. P. C. On 25-7-1972. The Police completed the investigation and submitted challan in the Court of Ilaqa Magistrate. Subsequently the offence was considered triable by Special Judge Anti-Corruption and the D. C. Forwarded all the records to him on 8-4-1976. Mst. Sabira Khatoon appeared before Investigating Officer and her son before the Special Judge Anti-Corruption as witness and admitted that ljaz Ahmad was a lessee of the surrendered land and had been in possession of. It. The Court held that the respondent had not made any interpolations in the revenue record and ljaz Ahmad could not be held responsible for the tampering made in the record attributed to him. The respondent was subsequently acquitted by the Court. The enquiry was delayed inordinately as the records were with the Special Judge Anti-Corruption. Subsequently an application was made by Muhammad Ashraf son of Ibrahim along with others to the Punjab Land Commission and the Senior Member, Board of Revenue. The file was obtained from the D. C /Collector, Gujranwala and entrusted to Audit Officer (Colony II) to probe into the matter and report.
4. The Audit Officer reported that the cancellation of the land had been lost sight of in an attempt to take departmental criminal action against the culprits and proposed that action under section 30 of the Colony Act as amended by Punjab Ordinance No, XII of 1978 be taken for the cancellation of the sale and resumption of the land. The case was transferred to the Judicial side on 31-1-1981.
5. Show-cause notice was issued to the respondent and the petitioners were also informed about the hearing of the case.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that according to the policy in case the allottee did not wish to purchase the land his tenants could purchase it. They had to opt for its purchase upto 28-2-1962. The respondent applied on 27-2-1962 for the purchase of the land and the Patwari on 29-6-1962 reported in his favour for the purchase of 868 Kanals 12 Marlas of land. The respondent on 1-8-1962 had also made statement before the Tehsildar on his being lessee under Sabira Khatoon since Rabi 1961. He stated that the respondent on 20-8-1962 made another application describing 223 Kanals of land to be purchased by him. He contended that D C/Collector on 2-2-1963 allowed him to purchase X98 Kanals 12 Marlas of land. He argued that ljaz Ahmad had not been the tenant of Mst. Sabira Khatoon allottee in Kharif 1901 but in connivance with the then Patwari changed the pages of Khasra Girdawari and interpolated in the revenue record and thus posed himself to be tenant. He contended that Khawaja Abdul Rashid, A. D. C. (C) and Mian Waheedud-Din E. A. S.
0. And the Secretary (Land Utilization) had held in their enquiry reports and Inspection Note that the respondent was not the tenant in Kharif 1961 and interpolations in the record were made. He contended that according to Register Khasra Girdawar in the Court the interpolations of the name of ljaz Ahmad alongwith the name of Roshan Din son of lnayat in Kharif 19E1 in Khasra No, 857 was evident. He stressed that the reference of this Khasra Number was thereafter made in Khasra numbers 858, 860, 861, 866, 867, 870, 878 and 879. He stated that in Khasra Nos. 814, 817 and 822 in Kharif 1962 the name of the respondent was subsequently added with other ink. He also referred to the forged addition and interpolations having been made in Khasra Gridawari in Khasra Nos. 910, 917, 923, 927, 928 to 939, 960 and 1441. He argued that the respondent was not in cultivating possession of any land in year 1961-62 and his cultivation started on some field numbers in 1963-
64. He argued that the respondent was thus not entitled to purchase the surrendered land.
7. The learned counsel for the respondent contended that he filed the application for the purchase of the surrendered land as a lessee of the allottee on 27-2-1962, whereas the last date to file the application was 28-2-1962 for allottee and 30-4-1962 for tenants. He stated that the other application dated 20-8-1962 which was after the crucial date and had no effect on the case if considered to be the application for the purchase of 223 Kanals of land although it was an incorrect reading of the application by the Inspecting Officer. He argued that in fact instead of "Kanal" the word Khata RL-II was to be recorded. However, this was recorded to mention the allotment of the claimant and not for the purchase of land. The claimant had obtained allotment of 223.960 acres at R. L. II No, 223. He argued that the case of the respondent was examined by the Tehsildar on 23-8-1962 and thereafter was checked by the office and the Revenue Assistant. The D.
C./Deputy Settlement Commissioner (Lands) allowed the purchase of land mesauring 868 Kanals, 12 Marlas equivalent to 6,481 P. I. Units and Robkar was issued. He argued that it was wrong to hold that there was doubt about the order of D. C./Deputy Settlement Commissioner (Lands), dated 2- 2-1963. He contended that Reham Din (one of the petitioners present in the Court) and Sher Muhammad had challenged the allotment before the Additional Commissioner, which was dismissed as withdrawn on 21-9-1963 as they had no claim over the land. He contended that one Muhammad Ashraf filed an application against the petitioner before the Revenue Minister in 1968 when the respondent had paid sufficient amount and brought the purchased area under cultivation. He contended that he had installed tube-well in the land in 1961 after obtaining its lease from the allottee. He urged that criminal case was investigated by the Anti-Corruption Establishment which submitted the challan of the case against the respondent and. Noor Din (deceas:d) Patwari, with the allegation that false and fake entries in the Khasra Girdawari were made in favour of the respondent. Mst. Sabira Khatoon the allottee had appeared before the Investigating Offic r and had admitted in her statement that she had leased out the disputed land to the respondent. He further contended that Mumtaz Hussain son of Mst. Sabira Khatoon (original allottee) appeared before the Special Judge during the trial of the case and stated that her mother had leased out the land in dispute to the respondent. He argued that the deposition of Mst. Sabira Khatoon and her son Mumtaz Hussain clearly establish that the respondent was the tenant of the land allotted to her. He contended that the basic point on which the enquiry was initiated against the respondent was the allegation of tempering/interpolation in khasra Nos. 857 and 960. He contended that the respondent neither purchased these Khasra numbers nor the Khasra numbers upon which the reference of these numbers was given and thus the interpolations/tempering in these Khasra numbers was of no consequence at all. He contended that the appeal of Seer Muhammad and Reham Din was dismissed on 21-9-1963 by the Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner and the criminal case was turned down by the Special Judge Anti-Corruption vide his judicial order dated 4-1-1977. Thus the case cannot be re-opened on executive side. He argued that the Special Judge in his decision dated 4-1-1977 observed that the Additional Commissioner (Cons.) acted in a per functionary manner and arrived at the conclusion that Ijaz Ahmad in collusion with Noor Din Patwari (deceased) changed the entries of Khasra Girdawari regarding Kharif 1961 in column Kishat. The Special Judge remarked that the A. D. C./(C) failed to convince him regarding his conclusion. He remarked that none came forward who have been entered as tenant for complainant. He in his order mentioned that Mst. Sabira Khatoon had admitted before the Investigating Officer that she gave her entire land (1,781 Kanals 10 Marlas) on lease for eight years in March, 1961 to Ijaz Ahmad and to none else. The Special Judge acquitted the respondent.
He argued that the D. C./Collector, Gujranwala did not complete the enquiry observing that the case was sub judice in the criminal proceedings. He argued that none of the Enquiry Officers reported against the respondent that he was guilty of forgery or interpolation in the register Khasra Girdawari and thereby got the proprietary rights in the disputed land through fraud or misrepresentation. He further contended that a decision of the Tribunal can only be set aside on legal evidence and not merely on suspicion and has relied upon PLD 1981 SC 838. He stressed that none of the Enquiry Officers suggested for taking cognizance under section 3C(2) of the Colony Act.
He alleged that the respondent had paid Rs, 27,350 towards the price of the land but thereafter due to enquiry against him the Department refused to deposit amount. He argued that nine persons bad applied for the purchase of the surrendered land as tenants under M. L. R. 89-91 and they were allowed the same and there still remained about 13 acres of land with the unauthorised occupants.
He argued that the petitioners have no concern with the land nor they were its tenants. He urged that the notice be withdrawn and he be allowed to deposit the outstanding amount.
8. The Patwari has supplied some copies of the-record.
9. I have considered the facts, circumstances of the case and the arguments furnished by the parties and perused the records of the case. In tnct there is only one substantial allegation against the respondent that he had not been the tenant of i4st. Sabira Khatoon and had succeeded to opt and purchase the said land by fraud and to make it success, he with the connivance of Noor Din Patwari had tempered with the entries of revenue record i,e, Khasra Girdawari when he got his name added in the entries against Khasra Nos. 857, 858, 860, 861, 866, 867, 870, 878, 879, 928 to 929 etc., in Kharif 1961. In an effort to support this contention a reference to the application of the respondent is made wherein he had mentioned that he had opted to purchase 223 Kanals of land not the entire area. The Inspection Note recorded by the Secretary (Land Utilization) and the Audit Officer of the Board of Revenue have also been relied upon wherein it was reported that the purchase of land made by the respondent was irregular and had been secured by fraud. It is on record that the Patwari made his report and gave details of 86 Kanals 12 Marlas equivalent to 6810 P. I. Units of land out of 1306 Kanals 6 Marlas of land surrendered by the allottee. The Tehsildar recommended the case ,an 23-8-1962 and after examination and further scrutiny the D. S. C.
Allowed the purchase of 868 Kanals 12 Marlas vide his order dated 2-2-1963 and Robkar to this effect was issued. It, therefore, cannot be concluded that there was suspicion in the order of the D S. (C). The Special Judge Anti-Corruption in his order 4-1-1977 has adequately dealt with the so- called cuttings and interpolations in the Khasra Girdawari of Kbarif 1961 harvest and has come to the conclusion that Kh. Abdul Rashid A. D. C. (C) admitted that the land was allotted to Mst. Sabira Khatoon on 9-8-1960. Surely after the allotment of land the other husband (Mukhtar) had given this land for cultivation to somebody and in that case who that if not Ijaz Ahmad respondent and the prosecution has not produced anybOdy who could come forward to say that he was cultivating the land in Kharif 1961. He while acquitting the accused held that the land was on lease with Ijaz Ahmad and with noneelse.
10. It is also a fact that Sher Muhammad and Rehm Din bad filed appeal before the Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner against the order of D. S. C. Dated 2-2-1963 vide which he allowed the respondent to purchase the land, but this appeal was rejected on 21-9-1963 and none agitated against this order. If for the sake of arguments it is persumed that the respondent had not been cultivating the land in Kharif 1961 even then it is not denied that he has been in possession of the land since Kharif 1963. The counsel for the petitioners had admitted him to be in possession of the land although since 1963-64. The Government of Punjab in Colonies Department letter No, 5504- 75-I/132-CS, dated 15-1-1976 has circulated the policy for the disposal of such laud and directed that after cancellation of grants and resumption of land from the defaulting opted purchasers, these be allotted to tenants who were in possession of such land in accordance with the same terms and conditions under which the land is distributed free of cost on resumption of land from land owners in excess of the prescribed ceiling under M. L. R. 115 by the Land Commissioner.
11. The argument that the respondent had opted to purchase only 223 Kanals of land also gains no ground when it is established that the number of the concerned Khata of the RL-II Register is 223 and the respondent admits that it was just a slip of pen that the word Kanal was inadvertently substituted instead of Khata. His contention cannot be denied. In the event when the original allottee and his son admit the respondent as their lessee and the Special Judge Anti-Corruption had categorically held that the tempering or interpolation in the revenue record could not be attributed to the respondent. The record shows that the purchase was allowed in favour of the respondent after fulfilling all formalities and even appeals filed against the transfer had been rejected by judicial orders. There is none else claiming to be the tenant of the disputed land in Kharif 1961 except Ijaz Ahmad. The circumstances referred to above leave no justification to proceed under section 30 (2) of the Colony Act against the respondent. It is, therefore, ordered that notice be withdrawn and the revision petition is rejected. The respondent is allowed to clear his arrear within three months from the receipt of the order by the D. C./Collector.