A series of schemes for the Rehabilitation/Re-Settlement of certain categories of displaced .
Persons, especially the ejected tenants of the Crown land in the Canal Colonies of the Punjab Province have been in operation since the Independence. Leaving the first few years, the thread can be picked up from July 1952, when a regular scheme for allotment of the entire available Crown land for temporary cultivation was promulgated in Punjab Government Memo. No. 650-TR, dated the 17th July 1952.
2. In 1955, another scheme, which superseded all previous Schemes, was promulgated with former Punjab Government letter No. 1624-55/817-C, dated the 12th March 1955. This scheme was intended to resettle local and refugee tenants who were dispossessed from their tenancies as a result of the decision of Government to treat refugee landlords at par with the local landlords in the matter of ejectment of their tenants. The leases of Crown land under the scheme were for a period of one year commencing from Kharif 1955 renewable only at the option of Government on annual basis.
3. In 1956, another scheme known as the 1956 Scheme was promulgated with Board of Revenue letter No. 1466-56,/1252-C(G) dated the 24th of May 1956. In this scheme the emphasis was shifted to the resettlement of tenants of evacuee land and other private land in the former Punjab who had been ejected during the year on the ground that the land was required by refugee landlords or local landlords for `Khud Kasbat'. Of course the lessees of Government land in the Canal Colonies who were ejected on the ground that the land was required by Government for some other purpose (provided they had been cultivating Government land and/or private land continuously w. e. f. Kharif 1951 inclusive) as well as lessees under the 1955 scheme were also to be resettled under this scheme.
4. In the subsequent scheme promulgated in 1957 and 1958 under Board of Revenue (Colonies)
Memo. No. 1949-58/2728-C (G), dated 28 May 1:958) the principles which governed the 1956 scheme continued to be applicable. In other words, the tenants of evacuee land and other private land in the former Punjab who were ejected on the ground that the landlords required land for `Khud Kasht' were to be given priority in the matter of resettlement. Of course the existing lessees of Government land under the preceding scheme as well as those whose land was required by Government for some other purpose were also to be provided for.
5. In the 1958 scheme it was stipulated that leases granted under the scheme would be only for a period of one year w. e. f. Kharif 1958 but those could be continued from year to year until Government took a final decision in regard to the permanent disposal of such lands or until there was a serious breach of the conditions of the lease. These schemes alongwith other amendments are contained in Appendix I, pages 15 to 43 of "the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 with supplement by Ch. Altaf Hussain (1966 Edition) published by the Pakistan Law Times Publications, Lahore.
6. Coming to the facts, of the present case it is pertinent to mention that a list was prepared by the Colony Assistant, Pakpattan, exercising the powers of Collector, of persons eligible to get land under the scheme envisaged in the aforesaid letter No. 650-TH, dated 17-7-1952. The petitioner Muhammad Sadiq's name was included in that list. The matter remained quiet for some time when the 1956 scheme came into the field. The petitioner was successful in getting certain area of the State land allotted to him as an ejected tenant on 27-7-1956. Considering that this allotment was irregular it was cancelled by the E. A. C. O. On 3-1-1957.
7. It appears that on 11-11-1958 the petitioner was again successful in getting allotment of 8 acres of land which are 'presently in dispute from Mr. A.I Ahmed, Colony Assistant, exercising the powers of a Collector. Later on, however, on some Mukhbari application this allotment of the petitioner was also cancelled by Mr. N. Grardezi, Colony Assistant, exercising the powers of a Collector, on 5-1-1962. He held that the petitioner had apparently obtained land on the basis of 1952 scheme which had obviously been superseded on 12-3-1955 and other subsequent schemes. Eligibility under the 1952 scheme, according to Mr. Gardezi, was no qualification for getting land presently in dispute on 11-11- 1958 when the 1958 scheme had come into operation He further held that the petitioner had beer.
Cultivating more than five acres of land prior Ao Kharif 1959, i. e. From Kharif 1956 up to Rabi 1959 and he was, therefore, not entitled for the. Initial allotment of the land in dispute. After giving this finding he directed that the allotment made to the petitioner would not be renewed after Rabi 1962 and the area in question should he treated as Baqaya State land w.e.f. Kharif 1962,
8. The petitioner filed an' appeal which was rejected by the .Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Multan Division, Camp Montgomery, on 22-5-1962.
9. The petitioner filed a` revision but without any success as the same was rejected by the learned Member, Board of Revenue on 29-3-1963. The petitioner then filed a review application before the learned Member, Board of Revenue but it met the same fate and was dismissed on 1-8-1963. The petitioner has come up in writ against the aforesaid proceedings and orders to this Court.
10. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a perusal of the impugned orders would show that the tenancy has been cancelled, as contended in paragraph 9 of the written statement filed by the Deputy Secretary (Colonies), Board of Revenue, Punjab, on the ground that the petitioner was inter alia guilty of breach of an important condition of the scheme, namely, that he had been retaining some other area in addition to the area in dispute whereas the condition of the tenancy was that a tenant should not have any other area of more than 5 acres. If this was the fault of the petitioner, it is argued by the learned counsel, even then section 24 of theth Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 would be fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The said section reads as follow :----- "Power of imposing penalties.----When the Collector is satisfied that a tenant in possession of land has committed a breach of the conditions of his tenancy, he may, after giving t' the tenant an opportunity to appear and state his objections-
(a) impose on the tenant a penalty not exceeding one hundred rupees, or
(b) order the resumption of the tenancy; Provided that if the breach is capable of rectification the Collector shall not impose any penalty or order the resumption of the tenancy unless he has issued a written notice requiring the tenant to rectify the breach within a reasonable time, not being less than one month, to be stated in the notice and the tenant has failed to comply with such notice."
The contention seems to have force. I have sent for the original record -which was produced on certain dates of hearing by the Department and I find that the petitioner had duly submitted a Stamped Agreement indicating that he was prepared to surrender any other land which may be with him, though he had mentioned that the details of the land to be surrendered -or the claim form against which it was allotted to him, should be obtained from the Patwari so as to be exact in the matter. This will show that there was always a willingness on the part of the petitioner not to retain any other land with him and if somehow or other that condition remained unfulfilled for any time the Collector had jurisdiction to get it rectified because the breach was not such which was not capable of rectification. The question of imposing a penalty could also similarly be kept in view.
The authorities below it appears did not advert to the correct law on the subject due to which their orders stand vitiated.
11. Another point argued was that it was not clear in the orders of -the subordinate authorities as to under which scheme actually the land was allotted to the petitioner and the orders of the said authorities are in this respect confused and overlapping. This contention also seems to have merit.
None of the authorities below have pinpointed a particular letter or the scheme with which the petitioner was to be governed and nor has reference been made to any of its precise paragraph under which the action was being taken against the petitioner. The learned Collector was of the view, as indicated in paragraph 4 of the written statement, that the petitioner had violated the instructions dated 17-7-1952 whereas the learned Member, Board of Revenue has held that it was due to some subsequent ineligibility that the lease of the petitioner was cancelled. According to paragraph (c) of the 1958 scheme published in Appendix I of the book hereinbefore mentioned, any tenant who during Rabi 1958 season---
(i) owns or is an allottee under the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme for three acres or more of agricultural land ;
(ii) holds any tenancy of Government agricultural land or private land measuring five acres or more besides the tenancy for which he seeks compensation under the scheme ;
(iii) is ejected from evacuee or private land of two acres or less at the end of Rabi 1958 ; or
(iv) is not a self-cultivator of the tenancy in question; shall not be eligible for a lease under this scheme. Authorities below have taken the view that the petitioner had been cultivating land measuring 5 acres or more besides the tenancy in question, therefore, he was not eligible for the initial grant made to him on 11-11-1958. The condition laid down in the aforesaid provision is that the lessee should not hold "any tenancy of Government agricultural land or private land". No finding has bee given that the petitioner was an owner or a tenant of any private land and if so under whom. The orders of the authorities below suffer from failing to notice the condition precedent hereinbefore mentioned for making a person ineligible for acquiring a lease and are thus liable to be held to be without lawful authority.
12. The upshot of the above discussion is that the writ petition is accepted. The impugned orders are declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal consequence against the petitioner and are hereby quashed. This, however, will not preclude the authorities concerned from attending to the matter in hand in accordance with law in case they feel the necessity to take up this case afresh and nor will it preclude the petitioner from following his rights, if any, under the law. There shall be no order as to costs.