These are four revision petitions against the order of Commissioner Faisalabad dated 12-5-1986 whereby he upheld the order of D.C./ Collector Jhang dated 29-8-1983 and 11-6-1984 refusing proprietary rights of the Lambardari grants to the petitioner.
2. Briefly the facts are that Charagh Shah predecessor of the petitioner was allotted 27 acres 4 kanals and 8 marlas of land in Chak No. 12/JB, Tehsil Chiniot, as Lambardari grant in 1920. After Independence when the Provincial Government allowed grant of proprietary rights for Lambardari squares, he was allowed to deposit the price of land at Rs.150 per acre in half-yearly instalments in 1951 and deposited four instalments when he died in 1953, thereafter no instalments were deposited by his son Asad Imrani who succeeded him as Lambardar. The Provincial Government thereafter vide memorandum No. Col--10/12-56 dated 8-8-1956 decided that those hereditary Lambardars (who had not paid) will deposit the price at Rs.800 per acre within one month failing which the concession will be withdrawn and grant resumed when the Lambardari fell vacant. The Collector therefore issued notice to Asad Imrani to deposit the price at the rate of Rs.800 per acre, who intimated his willingness to do so and the District Collector referred the matter to the Board of Revenue for a formal approval as the case had originated under an earlier notification. Asad Imrani also died and his brother Abdullah Shah, the present petitioner, was appointed as Lambardar. He also requested the District Collector for permission to deposit the remaining price. The District Collector again referred the case to the Board of Revenue for advice and the matter remained pending. In the meantime it transpired that the impugned grant was resumed by the Collector on 19-2-1969 and a Writ Petition No. 3152/1982 filed by Abdullah Shah in the Lahore High Court was disposed of with the following observations:- "The land allotted to the petitioner was cancelled by the Collector, Jhang, in the year 1969. The petitioner is challenging its cancellation through writ petition. Since the petitioner can seek the same relief from the Revenue Court, the present petition is mis-conceived. Let him seek the remedy available to him."
The petitioner approached the District Collector who after hearing the parties on 29-8-1983 directed the case to be kept pending till receipt of instructions from the Board of Revenue. The Board vide memorandum dated 11-12-1983 decided that no further proprietary rights could be given to Larnbardars in any case. On receipt of these instructions District Collector rejected the application of the petitioner.
3. Aggrieved by the order the petitioner filed appeal before the Commissioner who heard the parties examined the record and observed that lot had been resumed from the grantee on 19-2- 1969, due to non-payment and the Government in Colony Department vide memo dated 11-12-1983 has directed not to allow further proprietary rights to the Lambardars in any case. He therefore observed that the District Collector had rightly resumed the land from the petitioner and leased out to the respondents. Hence these revision petitions.
4. 1 have heard the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that on the death of his predecessor-in-interest Asad Imran, the petitioner was appointed Lambardar in 1977, and although present allotments to Lambardari grant were stopped in 1974, it was directed that Lambardars in possession would not be disturbed. These orders still hold the field. He argued that the disputed land was in fact an old Lambardari grant and the petitioner was entitled to its proprietary rights and actually his case was for payment of unpaid instalments, but during the pendency of the case and stay orders issues on 21-5-1984 by the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), the land was leased out to the respondents on 11-4-1985 without any publicity. Consequently the said lease to respondent was without lawful authority. As regards the resumption of the land from the father of the petitioner on 19-2-1969 there was no order on record in the office of the Collector nor has this order been ever produced before any Court. The petitioner, and before him his father have been in continuous possession of the land and even otherwise the land being Lambardari grant its possession could not be resumed from a hereditary Lambardar as the issue was only for grant of proprietary rights and not of cancellation of grant.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent contended that the Board of Revenue in the year 1963 had announced a policy for reduction of the size of the Lambardari grants from one square to half square and the lot had been resumed from the Lambardar in 1969, for non-payment of dues; Consequently in any case the petitioner could retain only half a square of the disputed land. He claimed that the land was validly leased out under temporary cultivation Scheme and the respondents had deposited the rent in advance.
6. I have considered the arguments and perused the record of the case and the file of the Collector as well as of the Board of Revenue. Square Nos.9/16 to 25, 34/1 to 10, 11/1 to 15/1, 36/2, 3/19 measuring 27 acres 4 kanals 8 marlas in Chak No. 12/JB, had been allotted to Charagh Shah Lambardar predecessor of the petitioner as Lambardari grant in 1920 under the Mule Breeding Scheme, then current. Charagh Shah had been allowed proprietary rights of the land in 1951 on payment eighteen 6-monthly instalments and he had deposited four instalments towards the price of land on 8-5-1952, 1-11-1952, 26-1-1953 and 1-7-1953. He died on 25-12-1953. His son Asad Imrani was formallly appointed as Lambardar and on 9-8-1961 applied to be allowed to deposit the remaining instalments. However the said Lambardar on 19-9-1963 agreed to deposit the price at Rs.800 per acre for the lot. The Collector directed that the matter be referred to the Board of Revenue vide order dated 19-9-1968 but prima facie the file remained pending without any action in the office of the Deputy Commissioner. In the meantime Asad Imrani also died, and Abdullah Shah the present petitioner succeeded him and was appointed Lambardar on 12-7-1977. The family however remained in possession of the land and Abdullah Shah also applied for the deposit of the remaining price. It was at this stage that the Deputy Commissioner, Jhang, finally moved the Board of Revenue vide Memo. No. 5073/CB, dated 7-4-1979 recommending that the Lambardar be allowed to deposit the price at Rs.800 per acre as already agreed by the D.C./Collector on 199-1963.
The resumption of the impugned land on 19-2-1969 as per entry in Roznamcha Vaqiati No.440 dated 11-8-1969 is not corroborated by any order in Deputy Commissioner's or Board's files nor was the possession taken back from the Commissioner. Actually his case was forwarded to the Board of Revenue by the District Collector on 7-4-1979 for allowing him to deposit the price. As regards reduction in the size of the grant, it is on record that the Lambardar had been allowed proprietary ruts of the entire land and he had paid for the price till 1-7-1953. He has there ore acquired vested rights in the full lot. It is also obvious that the respondent obtained lease of the land when there was stay order issued by the Commissioner on the appeal of the petitioner. In such circumstances, the order in favour of the respondents is hereby cancelled. The amount paid by the tenants as lease rent may be refunded. As regards the petitioner, the D.C./ Collector Jhang had directed on 19- 9=1963, to make a reference to Board of Revenue, for purchase of proprietary rights and it appears that no reference was made till. 1979, which is not due to any fault of the petitioner. The predecessor of the petitioner had already been allowed proprietary rights for the whole lot in 1951, and he had deposited 4 instalments at Rs.150 per acre. Non-deposit of instalments is a rectifiable breach. Since the petitioner was willing to deposit the price at Rs.800 per acre and the D.C./ Collector had recommended this rate, he is allowed to pay the price to be calculated for the full rea at Rs.800 per acr he revision petitions are disposed of accordingly.