' This is a revision petition against the orders of the Additional Commissioner, Multan Division, Multan, dated 12-8-1988 whereby he modified the orders of the AC/Collector Vehari dated 4-6- 1985 imposing Tawan amounting to Rs,68,925 on the petitioner for illicit cultivation of State land measuring 75K 12M. Situated in Chak No,52/ WB, Tehsil and District Vehari.
2. I have heard the petitioner through counsel and seen. The record. Briefly the position is that the AC/Collector Vehari had imposed Tawan on the petitioner for illicit cultivation for 5 years (1982 to 1987) at the rate of Rs,135 per acre per annum. The petitioner had urged before the Additional Commissioner that the impugned land was allotted to one Latif son of Karim Bakhsh under Co- operative Farming Scheme and the petitioner cultivated the land under the said allottee as tenant from 1976 to 1980, and therefore, no Tawan should be levied on him for that period. Further, that subsequently the land was taken on lease by the petitioner himself for 5 years w.e.f .1982 to 1987 and he applied to A.C/Collector for depositing the lease money but the Collector did not accept the same. Consequently there was no justification for imposing Tawan on him for the said period also. The Additional Commissioner held that as the petitioner remained tenant under the original allottee from 1976 to Kharif 1980, therefore, Tawan for the said period should not have been levied but ordered that Tawan for the remaining period i.e,1981 to 1987 should be assessed and recovered from the petitioner and he should also be ejected forthwith. Hence this revision petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended before me also that land had been transferred to the Co-operative Society and was allotted to Abdul Latif in 1950. It was however stated that the petitioner remained his sub-tenant and after the resumption of land from Abdul Latif the petitioner became member of the Society and obtained the land on lease from the Society. Thus, Tawan could not be assessed by the AC/Collector.
4. The position is that the land is with the Co-operative Farming Society and the impugned order was passed by the AC/Collector, Vehari who could not do so unless the land was formally resumed from the Society. It was therefore for the Society to assess penalty against the petitioner if it considered him to be an unauthorised cultivator of the impugned land. In the circumstances I am afraid the impugned order imposing Tawan is without jurisdiction. If the AC/Collector feels that the land is not being utilised by the Society and is surplus of its needs, then he may first issue a notice for resumption to the Society. The present petition is therefore accepted and the orders of the AC/Collector, Vehari as well as Additional Commissioner are set aside.