HAFEEZULLAH ISHAQ, MEMBER.- Brief facts of the case are that under Grow More Food Scheme, alternate land measuring 86 kanals comprising Khasra No.100/17-18-19, 10/1, 11/1, 102/8/2/, 47/20 to 25 situated in Chak No.111/15- L, Tehsil Mian Channu, District Khanewal was allotted in the name of Ahmad Khan (petitioner) in lieu of his original allotment in Chak No. 76/15-L. Subsequently the Audit Team of Board of Revenue, Punjab, detected certain irregularities regarding the alternate allotment. The Commissioner under the direction of Board of Revenue, Punjab, granted permission to review the order of the Collector. The matter was probed into by the Collector and the disputed land was resumed in favour of the State vide order dated 8.5.1991. This order was assailed in appeal before the Addl: Commissioner (Cons:), Multan Division, who rejected the appeal vide impugned order dated 23.5.1992. Hence this Revision Petition under Section 7 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 read with Section 164 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Learned DC/Collector did not obtain prior permission for review under Section 163 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, for reviewing the order of his predecessor. The Commissioner's order directing review of the Collector's order allotting alternate land to the petitioner is without jurisdiction as the power of review is discretionary and not directory. Moreover, there is discrepancy between the 'Show cause Notice' dated 8.1.1991 issued by the DC/Collector to the petitioner and that the order dated 8.5.1991 as the latter contains more grounds than given in the Show cause Notice the Collector could not have gone beyond the Show Cause Notice. The date fixed for applying for alternate land was inconsequential as it was not authorised by law. The petitioner had taken pains to develop the land and therefore the revision may be accepted and the impugned orders may be set asided.
3. I have considered the arguments and perused the case record produced by the representative of the State. The learned counsel for the petitioner's contention that the review is discretionary and the Commissioner's order directing review was without jurisdiction tends to overlook Sections 7,13 and 19 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967. In the instant case the direction for review was issued by the Board of Revenue to the Commissioner after consideration of the Inspection Report submitted by the Audit Party. The second point that the Collector had taken more grounds than given in the Show Cause Notice needs deeper examination. The Board of Revenue's instructions regarding lease of State land under Grow More Food Scheme have been issued from the to the starting since 23.12.1956. The policy and procedure for grant of alternate land is contained in Board of Revenue's memoranda No. 7294-82/6492-CL-III, dated 16.11.1992 and No. 8025-82/6916-CL-III, dated 27.12.1992.
The first memo: refers to grant of alternate land to the allottees under Grow More Food Scheme/Ejected Tenants Scheme, whose tenancies falls within the prohibited zone. They are not entitled to proprietary rights and are required to be given alternate land out side the prohibited zone. Similarly, the claims for the grant of proprietary rights to these persons who had purchased land from the original allottees are to be rejected. This letter fixed the dead line for applying for proprietary rights as 31.3.1983. The second letter directs that the Collector should satisfy himself that the applicant has the vested right according to Rules or Government Policy to get the alternate land. In such a case he should write a detailed self-contained order giving the particulars of the land which was taken away from the applicant and the circumstances under which it was taken away and the Rules and Government Instructions under which the alternate land is being given.
The most important point in this regard is to first see that the petitioner had been fulfilling the conditions on which the earlier land had been given and had qualified for proprietary rights. If he was doing so he would not be entitled for alternate land. The following reason were given in the Show Cause Notices:- URDU The learned Collector in his order dated 8.5.1991 has observed that he had heard one Muhammad Hassan son of Hanifa who claimed to have purchased this land from the allottee and applied for alternate allotment. The learned Collector also heard the allottee alongwith his counsel who conceded that the petitioner had not submitted any application for allotment of alternate land.
The Collector found that some fictitious person had managed to get alternate allotment in the name of the original allottee. The original orders of allotment were not available on the file and the eligibility for proprietary rights had also not been verified. Thus this allotment was found to have been made in utter violation of instructions and policy and procedure prescribed by Board of Revenue. Both the cowls below have not transgressed the authority vested in them under the law/rules and the instructions of the Board of Revenue. The revision petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.