' The two civil revisions (C.R. Nos. 277 and 395-D of 1984) have arisen out of judgment and decree, dated 27-5-1984 passed by Additional District Judge-II, Bahawalnagar, whereby the petitioners' two appeals filed against the judgment and decree, dated 9-4-1984 of Senior Civil Judge, Bahawalnagar, were dismissed with costs. Both the civil revisions shall be disposed of by this single judgment.
2. Briefly the relevant facts are that Shah Behram and others, petitioners in C.R. No. 395-D184, filed a suit for perpetual injunction contending that because they had been cultivating the land in dispute as tenants for the last 15 years and made it culturable by putting in hard labour and investing huge amount thereon, therefore, the respondents should be restrained from dispossessing them from it forcibly and without due process of law. This suit was filed on 31-8-1980. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioners received notices, dated 22-7-1981 and 27-10-1981 from Manager, Livestock Experimental Station, Haroonabad, respondent No. 2 and Assistant Commissioner, Haroonabad, respondent No. 3, respectively, for ejectment from the suit land, therefore the petitioners (in C.R. No. 277 of 1984) filed another declaratory suit with permanent injunction restraining their ejectment on the basis of said notices which were allegedly opposed to para. 25 of M.L.R. No.
115. Later, both these suits were consolidated by an order of the High Court, dated 23-1-1984 in W.P.
No. 371 of 1982 with a direction that the learned Senior Civil Judge, Bahawalnagar, shall decide the suits within two months positively. In pursuance of High Court's order both the suit were consolidated and tried by the Senior Civil Judge, Bahawalnagar. The respondents contested the suit and pleaded inter alia that the plaintiffs/petitioners were not entitled to cultivate the land in dispute because they had refused to accept tenancy on the conditions offered to them by the respondents, so they were liable for ejectment outright. On the pleadings of the parties four issues besides the relief were framed and tried. The important issue for the decision of these revisions is issue No. 3 which reads as under:-- ' Whether the plaintiffs are in possession of the disputed land as tenants; if so, what is its effect?
O.P.D.
3. Before proceeding further, it would be of advantage to narrate brief history of the suit land. This land is situated in Chaks Nos. 19, 20, 21 and 49/3-R, Tehsil Fort Abbas, district Bahawalnagar. It was transferred by the Board of Revenue, Punjab, to the Agricultural Department free of cost for setting up of a Government Seed Farm Haroonabad in the year 1971 vide letter Exh.D.7. It was stated in the letter of transfer that if this land was not required for the purpose for which it has been transferred then it shall revert to the Board of Revenue. Subsequently, the Government of Punjab, Agricultural Department, vide its letter dated 6-6-1973 (Exh.D.16) transferred this Seed Farm alongwith its buildings, machinery, etc., to the Director, Livestock Farms, Lahore, for development of new livestock farms. The incharge of the livestock farms/respondent wanted to get it vacated from the plaintiffs/petitioners who were entered in Khasra Girdawari and record of rights as tenants under Government Seed Farm and on the basis of this entry the petitioners claimed tenancy on the Government land and claimed protection under M.L.R. No.115 that they can be ejected from the suit property through filing a regular suit only on the grounds given in paragraph 25 of M.L.R.No.115.
4. Learned trial Court on consideration of material on record held that in the absence of any written order of a document showing appointment of the plaintiffs/petitioners as tenants, by the Government or any competent functionary, they cannot be regarded as tenants on the land in dispute and held them to be trespassers and consequently dismissed the suits. Against this, appeals were taken to the Court of Additional District Judge-II, Bahawalnagar. It was argued before him on behalf of the plaintiffs/petitioners that Government Seed Farm was Tenant of the State land and that the petitioners were sub-tenants under the Seed Farm, therefore, their tenancy is regulated like other tenancies as provided under section 7(2) of Colonization Act, 1912, and cannot be ejected without filing a regular suit on the ground given in para. 25 of M.L.R. No.115. The learned Additional District Judge observed that the land in dispute was State land and the petitioners possessed it without any allotment order from the Collector, therefore, they were not the tenants on the suit land under the Government. He further, held, that even if they are held to be tenants then they being tenants on Government land do not enjoy protection under para. 25 of M.L.R. No.115 in view of the definition of tenant amended by the Land Reforms Act, 1977. He further held that Assistant Commissioner, Haroonabad, was competent to proceed against them under the provisions of Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912 for their dispossession and ultimately the two appeals filed by the petitioners were dismissed with costs. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners have filed the two civil revisions in hand.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record.
6. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs/petitioners almost reiterated the arguments advanced before the lower Courts. Having perused the record I find that the stand of the petitioners that they are sub-tenants under Government Seed Farm, Haroonabad, does not find mention in both the plaints.
It is thus clearly afterthought. It may be mentioned that there is not an iota of evidence to show that petitioners were accepted as tenants by the management of Government Seed Farm. No body from the Seed Farms management has appeared to support this assertion.
7. There is yet another aspect of the case, i.e. The disputed land is admittedly State land. It was not given to Government Seed Farm, Haroonabad, on tenancy as according to transfer order Exh. D.7, it was given free of cost without fixing any rent so the Seed Farm management held the State land as agent of the State (Government). Likewise, the present transferee Director, Livestock, Lahore, has also taken over its management for implementing Government Policy of Development and breeding of livestocks. This department too is not tenant. There is thus no question of the petitioners becoming sub-tenants under them and, consequently, they cannot ask for protection under section 7(2) of the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912. Contrarily on their own showing, in the plaints, the petitioners claimed to be tenants under the Government for the last 15 years. They cannot be allowed to change their stand now. Being tenants/occupants of Government land they cannot claim protection of para. 25 of M.L.R. No.115 because the definition of "tenant" has been amended by section 2(12)(1) of Land Reforms Act, 1977, according to which tenants of Government land have been excluded from the definition of 'tenant' therefore, protection under para. 25 of M.L.R. No.115 is not available to them.
8. For what has gone above, concurrent findings of the two Courts below that the petitioners are not tenants but are illegal occupants and thus, liable to be dispossessed is correct and do not suffer from any legal or factual lacuna hence unexceptionable. The result is that both the civil revisions fail. They are, therefore, dismissed with costs throughout.