1. ' These are 14 revision petitions against the single order of the Additional Commissioner, Faisalabad dated 11-7-1984 whereby he rejected the appeals of the petitioners on the ground that the lands in dispute were within the prohibited zone of Town Committee, Mamun Kanjan as per instrucyion contained in Board of Revenue's letter dated 31-1-1983 and upheld the orders of the A.C./Collector dated 4-12-1984 separately pabsed in each case vide which he did not allow the proprietary rights to the petitioners of the following lands on the grounds that these were within the prohibited zone of Town Committee, Mamun Kanjan {{TABLE}} #TBS S. No, Name of lessee Period of lease #TBE Chak No, #TBS 1 Kamir #TBE 15 years 501/GB #TBS 2 Mst. Zabtan Bibi 3 Mt. Rajan etc. 4 Sadiq #TBE -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- #TBS 5 Murad 6 Qadir #TBE 10 years -do- 15 years -do- Area leased out Sqr. Nos. 33/3/min, 5 to 7, 10/1, 11/1, 13, Sqr, No, 49/13m 14 to 18 measuring 12A-4K-9M.
2. Sqr. Nos. 59/3-min, 4 to 14, 15-min, measuring 12A-4K-9M.
3. Sqr. Nos. 59/15-min 16 to 20, 22 to 25, 62/1, 2-min measuring 99 Kanals.
4. Sqr. No, 49/19 min, 22-mm, 23 to 25, 59/1 to 7, 8-min measuring 12A5K-12M.
5. Sqr. Nos. 65/1 to 12 measuring 96K-15M.
6. Sqr. Nos. 15/2/2, 9, 10/2, 11/1, 11/2, 20/1,8/5/1, 7/2, 30/3/2 4, 5, 7/1, 7/2, 8/1, 13/2, 14/1, 18/2,23/1 23/2, Sqr.
7. No, 33/1/2,3 measuring 12A-3K-7M. #TBS 7 lama!
8. 8 Ijaz Mai 9 Allah Ditta #TBE -do- 501/GB Sqr. 62/18-min, 19 to 21- 22-mm measuring 4A-1K19M. #TBS ,do- #TBE -do- Sqr. Nos. 62/22 to 25, 63/ 1 to 3, 64/1/2, 2, 3, measuring 11A-2K-6M. -do- Sqr. Nos. 62/2/1,3, 8 to 13, 14/1, 15 to 17, 18/1, measuring 12A-4K-11M. #TBS 10 Nazir Ahmad Shah 11 Waryyam 12 Ghulam #TBE -do- Sqr. Nos. 64/4/1, 5 to 11, 12/1 measining 8A-6KM. -do- 557/GB Sqr. Nos. 21/11/1, 12 to 22, 23-min, measuring 12A-OK. -do- Sqr Nos. 21/23/2, 24, 23, Sqr. -2MNo, 2/7, 9 to 12 19 to 22, measuring 11A-4K. #TBS 13 Muhammad Sharif #TBE -do- -do- Sqr. Nos. 20/14 min, 15 to 21-min, 22 to 25, measuring 11A-2K.
9. 1 2 3 4 5 14
2. Amir n I have heard the *, IMINW 15 years 557/GB Sqr. Nos. 20/2 to 4, to 13, 14-min, measuring 100 Kanals. learned counsel for the petitioners at length and {{TABLE}} gone through the grounds of revisions. He contended that Mamun Kanjan was constituted as Town Committee on 15-1-1983 vide Notification No, S(V) 3-2/82 (Faisalabad) and as such its limits now prescribed are not to be taken with retrospective effect. Previous to it Mamun Kanjan was not a Town Committee and as such there were no prohibited limits and all the lessees under temporary cultivation Schemes were to be allowed the proprietary rights. He argued that proprietary rights under Notification dated 3-9-1979 were allowed to so many other persons. He contended that in.
10. Case of Muhammad Ramzan of Chair No, 501/G.B. v. The State, Muhammad Masood Akhtor of Chair No, 50016.B. v. The State, the AC/Collector had refused the proprietary rights but in appeal, the Commissioner had allowed the proprietary rights. He further argued that the AC/Collector had rejected the application of Najabat of Chak No, 501/G.B. For the grant of proprietaty rights on 4-2- 1984 on the ground that the land was within the prohibited zone of Town Committee Mamun Kanjan, but subsequently vide his order dated 8-4-1984 had allowed the proprietary rights observing that on 22-12-1979 when Nijabat had applied for proprietary rights. Town Committee Mamun Kanjan was not in existence and it was constituted in year 1983. He argued that the cases of the petitioners were similar in nature and the lower Courts passed altogether different orders. He urged that the impugned orders be set aside and the petitioners be allowed the proprietary rights.
3. I have considered the arguments and perused the record of the case. Mamun Kanjan was constituted as Town Committee in 1983, whereas the petitioners had applied under Notification dated 3-9-1979. The becoming of Mamun Kanjan as a Town Committee in 1983 could not affect the rights of the petitioners. The revision petitions are thus allowed and the impugned orders are set aside. The cases are remanded to the A.C./Collector for reconsideration in accordance with Notification dated 3-9-1979. In these circumstances if the petitioners have fulfilled the conditions of temporary lease as contained in Notification dated 3-9-1979 they may be allowed the proprietary rights.