1. ' The dispute in this writ petition relates to allotment made in favour of the petitioners of various parcels of land under Fifteen Years Scheme. In all, there eight petitioners in this writ petition and the case of petitioner No,1 Rehmat Khan and petitioner No,2 Fazal Din is to be treated separately on facts while the case of the remaining petitioners is to be considered differently.
2. ' Accordingly, I will propose to deal with the case of Rehmat Khan, petitioner No,1 and Fazal Din, petitioner No,2.
3. ' The history and background of this allotment and litigation is that on 28th of May, 1971, Collector, Jauharabad, allotted land in favour of petitioners Nos.1 and 2 under Fifteen Years Scheme. This allotment initially was challenged in appeal by Manzoor and others and the said appeal was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner vide order dated 27-11-1972.
4. ' One Nazir filed another appeal against the order of the Collector but the same was dismissed vide order dated 27-10-1971 passed by the Additional Commissioner. Thereafter, Nazir filed a revision petition and the case was remanded to the Additional Commissioner vide order dated 25-11-1971.
5. On 9th of May, 1972, the Additional Commissioner again remanded the case to the Collector for a fresh decision. Vide order dated 29th of October, 1974, the Collector after making a probe maintained the original allotment made in favour of the petitioners. On 9th of July, 19"1, the Collector cancelled the allotment of one Ahmad Saeed and Najeeb Ullah and against the aforesaid cancellation of allotment, an appeal was filed by the allottees and the said appeal was allowed vide order dated 21-12-1971 and it was held that the cancellation of the allotment of Ahmad Saeed and Najeeb Ullah was illegal and the original land be restored to them but instead of restoring the original area allotted to Ahmad Saeed and Najeeb Ullah, the land allotted to Kaley Khan, Munir Khan son of Bodan Khan and Hussain Khan was given to Ahmad Saeed and Najeeb Ullah.
6. ' Against the aforesaid order, Munir, Kaley Khan and Hussain Khan filed three revision petitions and the same were accepted by the Member, Board of Revenue vide order dated 17-4-1974.
7. ' It may be stated here that Faiz Muhammad and others also came forward and filed an appeal against the order dated 28-5-1971, whereby the land was originally allotted to the petitioners. Said appeal was allowed vide order dated 18-4-1973 and it was directed that the entire allotment of land made in the Revenue Estate be cancelled. The aforesaid order dated 18th of April, 1973 was challenged before the Board of Revenue in revision and Member, Board of Revenue then called for a report from the Collector. Consequently, report dated 4th of June, 1974 was submitted to the Board of Revenue and on 12th of June, 1974, the revision petitions were allowed with the direction that the Collector shall make a fresh probe into the entire issue of allotment. On 20th of November, 1974, the Collector cancelled the allotment and the petitioners filed revision against the aforesaid order and the same was also dismissed on 17-1-1975 vide order impugned in this writ petition.
8. ' As observed earlier, the case of the petitioners 1 and 2 is distinct from the case of petitioners 3 to 8.
9. Petitioners 1 and 2 are legal heirs of one Bodhan who let behind petitioners 1 and 2 and one Munir as his sons and Mst. Chumi and Jumi as his daughters. The deceased Bodan at the time of his death, which took place after 1971 owned 142 Kanals of land and according to the law of inheritance, each son was entitled to inherit land approximately measuring 30 Kanals. It is further pertinent to mention that out of this 142 Kanals allotted, Bodan sold 22 Kanals and 8 Marlas and thus at the time of his death, the land measuring 120 Kanals was to be divided amongst the heirs and, therefore, after deducting the land falling in the share of the widow, each son was entitled to land measuring approximately 26 Kanals while each sister was to inherit 13 Kanals of land.
10. ' The allotment of land to the two petitioners 1 and 2 was cancelled on the ground that at the time of initial allotment, they were ineligible to get the allotment inasmuch as according to the rules governing the allotment under the 15 Years Scheme, the person allotted must not own land more than 4 Acres and furthermore he should be in self-cultivating possession. It may be stated here that the sisters of the petitioners did not migrate to Pakistan and it was only after 1971, one of the sisters came to Pakistan and, therefore, the Revenue Authorities considered that the entire land measuring about 120 Kanals left by Bodan had devolved upon the sons an not upon the sisters and therefore, they were holding land measuring more than 4 Acres and thus were declared ineligible to the allotment of land.
11. ' As far as the second objection on which they were held to be inelgible of the allotment was that they were not in self-cultivation of the land. This fact has also been controverted and it is submitted that since 1971 -till today petitioners are in continuous self-cultivating possession and the findings of the Collector were erroneous. It is further submitted that the findings of the Collector given on two occasions are contrary to each other because once they were held to be eligible while on another occasion in 1974, the petitioners to their astonishment were held to be ineligible.l'he land was allotted on 28th of May, 1971 and it was cancelled on 20th of February, 1974 that is after more than three years of the allotment.
12. ' Without going into the question whether the petitioners could not have also retained the share of their sisters who had not migrated to Pakistan, this writ petition can be disposed of on the basis of section 16 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 which reads as under:- "S.
16. False information by a tenant: ' If any person who after the commencement of this Act has been put in possession of land in a colony as a tenant shall have given false information intending or having reason to believe that any servant of the State may be thereby deceived regarding his qualifications to become a tenant, he shall be deemed to have committed a breach of the conditions of his tenancy:.
13. Provided that this section shall not apply to persons who have been in possession of a tenancy for more than three years or to any person who has acquired a right of ownership."
14. Thus, a perusal of the aforementioned provision of law clearly establishes that the law protects a tenant after expiry of three years for any breach committed or alleged to have been committed by a tenant. I am fortified in this view by a judgment of this Court reported as Allah Ditta and another v. Province of Punjab PLD 1978 Lah. 289 and the observations made by this Court in the case reported as Shahab Din v. Member, Board of Revenue PLD 1964 Lah.
15. 372.
16. ' Placing reliance upon these judgments, I am of the view that the allotment made in favour of the petitioners 1 and 2 could not have been cancelled after the expiry of three years because law provides protection to them. Now, at this stage, period of 15 years has also expired and, therefore, crucial question is with regard to the conferment of proprietary rights on them. It is also submitted that they have also deposited some instalments towards the price of the land and the authorities concerned should, therefore, consider the case of the petitioners for the conferment of their proprietary rights.
17. As far as petitioners 3, 4 to 8 namely Jamil Abdul Rehman, Din Muhammad, Muhammad Hanif, Mehmood Khan and Muhammad Mansha are concerned, their allotment was cancelled merely on the ground that they were not in self-cultivating possession. Their case, could have been considered from another angle as well because under section 24 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act, this breach could be rectified. In this view of the matter, I hold that the allotment made to them was also protected but as far as rectification of the breach is concerned, the concerned authority can consider their case and take steps towards the rectification of the breach.
18. ' With these observations, this petition stands disposed of.