' This is a revision petition against the order, dated 15-1-1965 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Khairpur whereby he rejected the petitioner's appeal in respect of remokal fine imposed on him for cultivating rice in S. Nos. 15 and 16 of Deh Umarkhas, Taluka Rohri during 1961-62 and 1963-64.
1 The facts of the case are that the disputed land is within the restricted belt, where rice cultivation is banned under the provisions of the West Pakistan Rice (Restriction on Cultivation) Ordinance, 1959, but these Survey numbers were cultivated by the petitioner with paddy during 1961-62 and these were therefore, forfeited to Government. The petitioner again cultivated these survey numbers with paddy during 1963-64 and he was, therefore, penalised by the Deputy Commissioner, Sukkur. The petitioner preferred an appeal against he penal action taken during the year 1963-64 but it was rejected by the Additional Commissioner, Khairpur, vide the impugned order.
3. The case was heard by me on 26-10-1970 and 23-2-1971. The counsel for the petitioner had urged the following points:-
(1) The petitioner was not served and heard by the Additional Commissioner, Khairpur and the ex parte orders were not justified. He had no knowledge about the impugned order earlier and that he obtained copy of the order and preferred the present petition as soon as he came to know about it in September, 1966.
(ii) The order of the Deputy Collector forfeiting the land was not warranted by the West Pakistan Rice (Restriction on Cultivation) Ordinance, 1959.
4. The representative of the Deputy Commissioner produced the original penal forms, number shumaris of the Deh for the years 1913-14 and 1950-51 and the original gazette notification published in the West Pakistan Gazette of May 6, 1960 page 797 and stated that there was ban on the rice cultivation in the land under the provisions of the West Pakistan Rice (Restriction on Cultivation) Ordinance, 1959, and not under any other law.
5. I have considered the arguments put forth by the parties and seen the record. The impugned order was passed on 15-1-1965 but the revision petition has been filed on 29-10-1966 and it is, therefore, time-barred by 562 days. The counsel for the petitioner contended that he had no knowledge about the order earlier and that he had not been served for the hearing before the Additional Commissioner, Khairpur. I have seen the file of Additional Commissioner, Khairpur and there is nothing to show that the petitioner was actually served for the date of hearing. The restrictions on rice cultivation were imposed in respect of the land under A the provisions of the West Pakistan Rice (Restriction on Cultivation) Ordinance, 1959, vide Gazette Notification published at page 797 of the Gazette, dated 6-5-1960 According to section 4 of the Ordinance, the Revenue Officer can only file a complaint and the penalty of forfeiture of the land is not provided in the Ordinance. The Additional Commissioner, Khairpur, had directed that the prosecution may be filed against the Khatedar but rejected his appeal against forfeiture of the land. The penalty of forfeiture of land is not provided in the Ordinance and as such the land cannot be forfeited to Government for infringement of the restrictions imposed under the Ordinance and the order of forfeiture of the Land was, therefore, without jurisdiction.
6. In view of the facts that the petitioner had no knowledge about the impugned order and in view of the fact that the order of forfeiture was ab initio void, the delay in preferring the revision petition is condoned and the revision petition is accepted and the order of the forfeiture of Survey B Nos. 15 and 16 of Deh Umer Khas, Taluka Robri, is set aside. Action should be taken for filing a regular complaint in the competent Court under section 4 of the West Pakistan Rice (Restriction on Cultivation) Ordinance, 1959, against the petitioner for cultivating rice in the disputed land during the years 1961-62 and 1963-64.