' This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 8-1-1990 of the Additional Commissioner (Rev.), Faisalabad Division, whereby the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed and the order of the AC/Collector dated 5-9-1989 was maintained.
2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner was leased out State land measuring 61 kanals 11 marlas situated at Chak No231/.1B till Rabi 1989. Thereafter, when the petitioner applied for extension of the lease the application was turned down by the AC/Collector Mang on the ground that the petitioner was not self-cultivating the land and therefore his lease could not be extended in accordance with the Government policy. The learned Additional Commissioner on appeal upheld the order of the AC/Collector.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length and have also examined the impugned orders. Even a reference to the revision petition will reveal that in the Girdawari Register the land in question was not shown under self-cultivation of the petitioner. The petitioner's version is that he has made an application for correction of entries of Khasra Girdawari. The learned Additional Commissioner has observed and rightly so that the application for correction of entries of Khasra Girdawari was made only to manoeuvre the extension of the lease. In this case one Gulzar had also moved application for the extension of the lease in his name on the ground that he was the actual_tiller of the land. This further supports the fact that the petitioner was not self- cultivating the land. The contention of the learned counsel that result of the application of the petitioner for correction of entries should have been awaited by the lower Courts, does not carry much weight because once the Collector was convinced on the basis of sound evidence that the petitioner was not self-cultivating the land he simply could not proceed to extend his lease.
Moreover, the application for correction of entries was made on 17-5-1989 at a very belated stage.
4. Two lower Courts have given concurrent findings on the basis of sound evidence that the petitioner was not self-cultivating the land leased out to him, I, therefore, agree with them that the petitioner was not entitled to extension of the. Lease. The revision petition being substance is hereby dismissed in limine.