' This is a time-barred appeal against the order of Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Bahuwalpur, dated 16-2-1982 whereby he accepted the appeal of Atlas Khan respondent against the order of Deputy Commissioner/Collector, Bahawalnagar, dated 19-8-1980 vide which he had resumed the lot from him which was with him under Tribal Area Scheme.
2. The facts of the case are that Atlas Khan respondent was allottee of an area of 22 Kanals situated in Chak No, 242/M, Tehsil Fortabbas under Tribal Area Scheme. Atlas Khan deposited the entire price of land and was allowed to execute the sale-deed. It came to the notice of Deputy Commissioner that he was not residing in the Chak and had not fulfilled the condition of allotment and sold out the land to Muhammad Hussain, etc. Through a decree of civil Court. A notice was issued by the District Collector to Atlas Khan respondent but neither he nor his general attorney appeared before the District Collector. As the degree was against Atlas Khan and the Provincial Government was not a party in the suit before the civil Court the District Collector, therefore, on 19- 8-1980 resumed the lot from Atlas Khan respondent. Atlas Khan respondent filed an application for the review of the order but subsequently withdraw his application on 15-10-1980 as he had filed an appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Bahawalpur. In the appeal filed before the Additional Commissioner, he had contended that after the deposit of price of land he became full owner of the land. His further contention was that he deposited the price of the land with the permission of the Deputy Commissioner, dated 13-3-1978 and obtained a decree from the civil Court on 9-3-1980 to self-cultivate the land and that the Deputy Commissioner/ Collector was not competent to review the order of his predecessor, dated 3-5-1978 vide which he had allowed the deposit of the price of the land. The Additional Commissioner observed that the general attorney of Atlas Khan was authorised to appear and apply before the District Collector as was envisaged in Board of Revenue Letter No, 1400-71/4086-CI, dated 31-12-1978. The Additional Commissioner accepted the appeal. Hence this revision petition.
3. Sharaf Din respondent-vendee contended that Muhammad Hussain the other vendee has since died and he is the only legal heir of Muhammad Hussain.
4. I have heard the parties. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the allotment of the disputed land was made to the respondent under Tribesman Scheme according to the terms and conditions of the Abadkari Scheme issued vide Notification No, Col. 2/54 (a)-56, dated 25-6- 1958, the tenant had to self-cultivate the land and to put his residence in the Chak. The appellant violated these conditions and while examining his case for the grant of proprietary right, it came to notice and after due notice to the appellants, the lot was resumed by the Deputy Commissioner/Collector vide his order, dated 19-8-1980. He argued that the Additional Commissioner accepted the appeal of the respondent without any notice to the petitioner and without considering that the respondent had violated the conditions of allotment and further without obtaining any permission from the competent authority had sold out his land. He argued that the conveyance deed had not yet been executed and the Deputy Commissioner/Collector competent to resume the land on the breach of conditions. He urged that the impugned order be set aside. The learned counsel for the respondent contended that the Deputy Commissioner/Collector allowed the respondent to deposit the sale price, the respondent when became full-fledged owner of the land he sold it. He argued that the present Deputy Commissioner/Collector was not competent to review the order of his predecessor without first obtaining the permission for review from the competent authority. He placed his reliance on PLD 1958 Rev. 94 (Lah.) and PLD 1978 Rev. 13 and urged that when the respondent had deposited the full price of the land, he became full owner and could sell the land. He urged that the appeal be rejected. The Colony Clerk stated that the conveyance deed had not been executed in favour of the grantee.
5. I have considered the arguments and perused the record of the case as well as the Scheme and the relevant instructions. The main arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent is that on the deposit of proprietary dues in the Government treasury the grantee had become full owner of the land and ceased to be governed by the provision of the Colony Act and no longer remained under any obligation to execute a deed of conveyance of the said land or to obtain any sanction under section 19 of the Colony Act for the alienation of his right. I am afraid, I cannot agree to this argument. No doubt that in the instant case the purchase money had been paid in full but one of the other essential condition contained in clause I of the statement of the condition, date 25-6-1958 requiring the petitioner to have a deed of conveyance executed stamped and registered at his own expense had not been fulfilled. According' to clause 12 the petitioner had to comply with all the conditions of the grant to the satisfaction of the Collector and the Collector could withheld the grant of proprietary right. In the instant case the condition of self- cultivation and permanent residence is violated. The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the respondent on the decision quoted in the PLD are not relevant to the case and do not cover the points involved, whereas another decision quoted relevant to the present case was reported in PLD 1980 Rev.
70. The Additional Commissioner (Rev.) has, therefore, failed to adjudicate in the matter with regard to the condition of grant and particularly conditions contained in clause 12 of the Notification, dated 23-6-1958. The appeal is, therefore, allowed and the impugned order is set aside.