' These four Revision Petitions have been filed under para 25(7) of Martial Regulation 115, against the order of the AC/Collector Pakpattan dated 6-4-1986, whereby he had set aside the order of the AC/Collector Grade I dated 18-9-1984. Since the facts and the law points involved in these four Revision Petitions are the same they are being disposed of by this single order.
2. Briefly, the facts of the cases are that the Punjab Government had leased out an area of about 10397 acres in Pakpattan/Depalpur Tehsils to the Federal Government through the Chief of Staff, Pakistan Army. The Federal Government through the Chief of Staff Pakistan Army is the lessee On this area which is being cultivated for the welfare of the soldiers of the Pakistan Army. The current lease which was given in 1975 for a period of 20 years expires in 1995. The Chief of Staff, Pakistan Army manages this tract of land through a Welfare Trust. This Trust has for a long time made arrangements to cultivate the land through individuals who are given leases by the Trust/General Manager Stud Farms on a year to year basis. The main issue to be decided in these Revision Petitions is the status of individuals who are actually cultivating this land. The Assistant Collector 1st Grade Pakpattan vide his order dated 18-9-1984 held that the present respondents are Pattadars under the Farm Manager who cultivate the land as lessees on a year to year basis and they are not protected under the provisions of Paragraph 25 of M.L.R.
115. However, on appeal, the AC/Collector Pakpattan came to the conclusion that the present respondents were sub-tenants of the Management Trust and they had the protection of Paragraph 25 of M.L.R.
115. Consequently, they could not be ejected from their tenancies without following the procedure envisaged under the relevant law.
3. I have heard lengthy arguments of both Counsel for the parties. I have also seen the record of these cases. The basic fact is that the land which is being cultivated by the respondents is State land owned by the Punjab Government and leased out to the Federal Government. The lessee in these cases is the Chief of Staff Pakistan Army who manages the land through a Welfare Trust.
Direct management responsibilities have been entrusted to the Managers Incharge of individuals Stud Farms. Since the land is owned by the Provincial Government and the present respondents are holding land under the Federal Government, they do not come within the scope of the definition of a "Tenant" as given in Paragraph 2(13) of M.L.R.
115. Since the present respondents are excluded from the definition of 'tenants' they cannot seek protection which is provided to tenants under paragraph 25 of M.L.R.
115. Moreover, the present respondents are cultivating State land under a lessee (Chief of Army Staff) and they cannot enjoy a tenancy right superior to that accorded by the Punjab Government (owner) to the Federal Government/Chief of Army Staff (lessee). The AC/Collector Pakpattan in his order dated 6-4-1986 had come to the conclusion that the present respondents were sub-tenants for the following reasons:--
(a) That the Farm Management had classified the present respondents as tenants in the receipts issued by them and they appear as such in the record of Khasra Girdawari;
(b) That in the statement of conditions on which the land has been leased out by the Punjab Government to the Federal Government, it has been mentioned in para 3(k) that houses for the use of sub-tenants and dependents can be erected upon the land in accordance with plans approved by the Collector in writing.
4. I am afraid that these reasons do not carry much weight. The mere fact that the Management of the Stud Farms has used the word 'tenant' in the receipts which have been issued to the present respondents or that the word 'sub-tenant' appears in the Statement of Conditions on which this land was leased out by the Punjab Government to the Federal Government, cannot by itself override the legal position i.e, as enunciated in para 2(13) of M.L.R. 115, persons holding land under the Government are excluded from the definition of a 'tenant'.
5. For the above reasons I hereby accept these Revision Petitions and set aside the order of the AC/Collector, Pakpattan dated 6-4-1986. The order of the Assistant Collector Grade I Pakpattan dated 18-9-1984 is hereby restored. The relevant Khasra Gardawari record pertaining to the Suit land which shows the actual cultivators (such as the present respondents) as tenants-at-will should be corrected. These cultivators should be shown as Pattadars or sub lessees.