' The Deputy Commissioner/Collector, Bahawalnagar has filed this suo motu revision petition against the order, dated 24-3-1982 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Revenue) Bahawalpur in appeal filed by the respondent, whereby the respondent was allowed to purchase the proprietary rights of Square Nos. 25/1 to 3, 8 to 13, 19 to 22 measuring 13 acres of land situated in Chak No, 182/7-R, Tehsil Fort Abbas which was with him under Grow More Food Scheme and fixed the price of land as Rs, 1,850 per acre against the order, dated 28-6-1980 of the Deputy Commissioner/Collector vide which he had resumed the lot.
2. The facts of the case are that the respondent was allotted 13 acres of land in Chak No, 182/7-R Tehsil Fort Abbas by the Deputy Commissioner/Collector, Bahawalnagar on 7-1-1980 under Grow More Food Scheme. He was allowed the proprietary rights or the disputed land on 27-2-1968, by private treaty. The Governor Inspection Team had scrutinized the case and remarked that the allottee failed to cultivate 50% of the allotted land within a period of 3 years from the date of allotment and that he had grown non-Food crops to the extent of 40% of the cultivated area. The Deputy Commissioner/Collector instead of making enquiry in the matter, vide his order dated 31-8- 1968, allowed the respondent to retain the land subject to payment of Rs, 100 as penalty. The price of the land was fixed as Rs, 1,850 per acre by the Assistant Commissioner/Collector vide his order, dated 10-3-1970. The respondents submitted an application to the Deputy Commissioner/Collector for the review of the price assessed by the Assistant Commissioner/Collector. The Deputy Commissioner/ Collector vide his order dated 3-6-1970 accepted the request and again sent the file to the Assistant Commissioner/Collector to reconsider the case. The Assistant Commissioner/Collector assessed the price at Rs, 1,000 per acre on 22-8-1971. The Deputy Commissioner/Collector scrutinized the case and observed that only 36 kanals of land had been brought under cultivation in Kharif 1965 and Rabi 1964 and in case of other years, the cultivation had been decreasing. He, therefore, on 3-1-1973, moved the Commissioner for the grant of permission of the orders dated 27-2-1968, 31-8-1968, 10-3-19'0 and 3-6-1970 and the Commissioner converted approval vide his order, dated 13-5-1980. The Deputy Commissioner/Collector thereupon vide his order, dated 28-6-1980, resumed the lot. The Additional Commissioner (Revenue) on 24.3-1982 set aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner/Collector, dated 28-6- 1960, and accepted the appeal of the respondent on the ground that the review of the order of Deputy Commissioner/Collector dated 27-2-1968, could not be made. The Deputy Commissioner/Collector has now filed this revision petition on the ground that the review order vide which the lot was resumed was passed after obtaining the permission of review from the Commissioner and the Additional Commissioner (Revenue) passed the order without hearing the representative of the Deputy Commissioner/Collector.
3. I have heard the parties. The representative of the Department has stated that the Deputy Commissioner/Collector passed the order, dated 28-6-1980, after obtaining due permission from the Commissioner and the Additional Commissioner (Revenue) has ignored this fact in his impugned order. It teas further contended that the the respondent had not brought the area under cultivation upto the limit fixed by the Government and it was against the provision of law. Non- Foodgrain crops were cultivated in 40% of the cultivated area. He argued that according to the policy of the Government, the extension in the lease of the respondent could not be made what to speak of granting proprietary rights. He argued that the impugned order which was passed against the tact's and rules be set aside. The learned counsel for the respondent contended that out of the allotted land only 4 acres were irrigated whereas the rest of the land was Tibbas. He assessed that the respondent had brought under cultivation the bulk of the area upto 19j5 and was allowed to purchase the proprietary rights in years 1968. He stressed that the litigation was only for the price of the land and not for the cultivation. He argued that the Government of the Punjab in Colonies Department vide its letter No, 2262-70/777 C1-1V, dated 31-3-1971 had decided to restore the allotments to the allottees of Grow More Food Schemes, if these were resumed for having grown non-food grain crops or failing to bring 50 % of the allotted land under cultivation and they were to be given proprietary rights if they were still in possession of the land and the Additional Commissioner (Revenue) rightly allowed him the proprietary rights. He urged that the revision petition be rejected. The Patwari of the circle stated that Muhammad Sharif was still in possession of the land but the land was lying Banjar.
4. I have considered the arguments of parties and perused the record of the case as well as of the Patwari. The area was still lying Banjar and the possession of the respondent was entered in the Khasra Girdawari. The respondent is thus allowed a time limit of 2 years to bring the area under cultivation and to saw the food grain crops. If the respondent could not bring the area under cultivation within two years the prescribed period allowed to him, the lot will be resumed. The impugned order is modified to this extent and the revision petition is thus disposed off.