' This is a revision petition against the order of Additional Commissioner, Faisalabad dated 20-6- 1984 whereby he dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and upheld the order of A.C./Collector, Samundari dated 15-5-1984 vide which he under the direction and permission of the Board of Revenue reviewed the order dated 1-7-1980 of his predecessor vide which he had allowed proprietary rights of Sqr. No 80/17 measuring 1A-0K-18M situated in Cbak No, 208/G.B. Under Notification dated 3-9-1979 to the petitioner which was with him under 5 Years Lease Scheme since 1975 and set it aside observing that his father had already obtained proprietary rights of 64 Kanals of land under Ejected Tenants Scheme and one family cannot have two lots of State land.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length and gone through the grounds of revision. He contended that only 1A-18M of land was leased out to the petitioner under 5 Years Lease Scheme in 1975. The petitioner fulfilled the conditions of lease and was allowed proprietary rights on 1-7-1980 by the AC/Collector. He contended that he deposited the price of land in the Government Treasury on 22-7-1980 and had become owner of the land. He contended that when on 15-5-1984, he applied for the execution of conveyance deed the AC reviewed his earlier order as per direction and permission of the Board of Revenue and resumed the land. He contended that his father had obtained the proprietary rights of only 64 Kanals of land under Ejected Tenants Scheme and if the disputed land was calculated with that land it did not exceed the subsistance holding and proprietary rights were rightly allowed. He contended that the petitioner was married and independent person and provision of para. 4(b) of Notification dated 3-9-1979 were not attracted in this case. He further contended that according to para. 163 of Land Revenue Act the Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue had no power to grant permission for the review of the order of the A.C./Collector. He urged that the impugned order be set aside. Price of land. The holding of his father when calculated alongwith the land does not exceed subsistance holding. In these circumstances taking a case. The land involved in the case is only one acre and 18 Marlas and the petitioner was allowed proprietary rights on 1-7-1980.
3. I have considered the arguments and perused the record of the lenient view in this particular case, the revision petition is allowed and the order of A.C./Collector dated 1-7-1980 is restored and orders dated 20.6-1984 of the Additional Commissioner and dated 15-5-1984 of A.C./ Collector, Sammundari are set aside.