' This is a revision petition against the order of Commissioner, Sargodba, dated 17-1-1981, whereby he dismissed the appeal of the petitioner being time-oarred and upheld the order of District Collector, Faisalabad, dated 28-4-1980 vide which he had resumed Squares Nos. 55/16 to 19, 21 to 23 situated in Chak No, 507/G.B., Tehsil Samundari, which was with the petitioner under 5 Years'
Lease Scheme.
2. The facts of the case are that the impugned land was illotted to petitioner on 24-8-1976 for 5 years by the Assistant Commissioner/ Collector, Samundari, and its possession was delivered to him. He applied for the grant of proprietary rights. The Deputy Commissioner/Collector, Faisalabad, found that the allotment made to the petitioner by the Assistant Commissioner/Collector, was against the instructions of the Board of Revenue contained in Memo. No, 941-74-5904-CLI, dated 12-12-1974. Memorandum No, 1985-75/2425-CLI, dated 11-4-1975, and Memorandum No, 5119- 75/4118-CLI, dated 30-7-1975, as no selection of the eligible persons by drawing of lot in the presence of the eligible applicants for the allotment was made and the lease was not got approved by the District Collector. He, therefore, issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner and vide his order, dated 28-4-1980 resumed the lot in favour of State, and directed that file of illicit cultivation be prepared for the period the petitioner remained in illicit cultivation of the land.
Aggrieved by this order the petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Sargodha who dismissed the appeal being time-barred and did not see any reason to condone the delay. Hence this revision petition.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. He contended that the area was leased out to the petitioner by the Assistant Commissioner/Collector and be put in possession of the land it was for him to have had the lease approved from the Deputy Commissioner and the petitioner was in no way at fault. He argued that as per instructions issued vide notification, dated 3-9-1979, the petitioner was ripe for acquiring the proprietary rights as valuable right had been created in favour of the petitioner. He argued that order dated 28-4-1980 was passed by the Deputy Commissioner/Collector without any notice and behind his back without hearing him and when he came to know in June, 1980 he applied for a copy of the order but the Colony Branch of the Deputy Commissioner Office was reluctant either to receive application or to supply copy of the order and after great struggle the copy was obtained and the appeal was filed before the Commissioner alongwith application under sections 5 and 18 of the Limitation Act in which the entire grounds for condonation of delay were recorded. He argued that Sardaran widow of Namdar an allottee of the disputed land under Ejected Tenants Scheme, filed Appeal No, 944/ACR against the petitioner before the Additional Commissioner (Rev.) which was dismissed on 10-2-1977. The 2nd Appeal No, 164/ACR, of 1977 of Mst. Sardaran against the petitioner was remanded to the Assistant Commissioner/Collector on 19-7-1977 and the Assistant Commissioner/Collector vide his order, dated 31-12-1979 kept intact, the allotment in favour of the petitioner. He urged that the impugned order be set aside and the land be restored to the petitioner and proprietary rights be granted.
' The representative of the State contended that the original lease made in favour of the petitioner by the Assistant Commissioner/Collector was to be approved by the District Collector as per Government Instructions but it was not got approved and thus the petitioner remained in illegal occupation of the land, and judicial orders were passed to cancel his lease. The Patwari of V e circle stated that the petitioner is in possession of the land since 9-9-1976, when the possession was delivered to him.
4. I have considered the arguments advanced by the parties. It is admitted by the parties that the lease was given to the petitioner by the Assistant Commissioner/Collector but this lease was not got approved from the District Collector as per instructions of the Government. The petitioner is, therefore, not at fault. It was for the officials of the Assistant Commissioner/Collector's Office to have had these approved from the Deputy Commissioner/Collector. The Deputy Commissioner/Collector should therefore, take action against the official at fault, who made such lapse The petitioner is in possession of the land since 1956 and if he had paid all the rent due from him, and the land in dispute is outside the prohibitedzone and there is no other breach of condition of any kind, the lease be restored to the petitioner. The revision petition is thus allowed.