HAFEEZULLAH ISHAQ, MEMBER.- Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was allotted State land comprising Khasra No. 12/3 to I6 measuring 94K-7M situated in Chak No. 76/15-L, Tehsil and District Khanewal under Grow More Food Scheme by the Collector vide order dated 18.3.1958. This lot was resumed in favour of the State subsequently. The petitioner moved an application for the allotment of alternate land which was rejected by the DC/Collector vide order dated 2.11.1986 on the score of limitation. Being aggrieved of the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Additional Commissioner (Cons:), Multan Division, Multan, wherefrom the case was remanded on 11.1.1987 to the Collector for fresh decision and the Collector vide order dated 10.1.1989 allotted Khasra No. 20/6 to 18 measuring 102K-9M situated in Chak No. 95/15-L. Thereafter the petitioner moved an application before the Collector, stating that the land comprising Khasra No.20/18 measuring 8 kanals allotted to him had already been reserved for grave yard vide order dated 21.9.1986 by the GAR Khanewal and prayed for the allotment of Khasra No. 20/2 measuring 8 kanals to him in lieu thereof. The Collector after having reports allotted Khasra No.20/2-6 to 17 measuring 102 kanals and 4 Marlas situated in Chak No. 95/15-L, Tehsil Mian Channu, District Khanewal as alternate land under Grow More Food Scheme vide order dated 11.4.1989. Later on the case was scrutinized by the Audit Team of the Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore. Certain irregularities were pointed out in the allotment of the land in the Scrutiny Report. The learned Commissioner Multan Division, granted permission to review the above said allotment order of the Collector. Consequently the Collector vide order dated 10.4.1991 cancelled the allotment from the name of the petitioner and resumed in favour of the State. That order was challenged before the Additional Commissioner (Cons:), Multan Division, who rejected the appeal on 23.5.1992. Hence this revision petition under Section 7 of Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912, read with Section 164 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967.
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 was 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 Collector's order dated 8.5.1991 in so far as more grounds have been taken in the aforesaid order 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 aside.
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 issued instructions regarding lease of state land under Grow More Food Scheme from the to the starting from 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 16.11.1982 and No. 8025-82/6916-CL-III, dated 27.12.1982. 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 of these persons who had purchased land from the original allottees are not to be entertained and are to be rejected. This letter fixed the dead line for alternate land as 31.3.1983. The second memo: 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 not doing so he would not be entitled for alternate land. The show-cause notice issued to the petitioner by the Collector stated as follows:- Urdu A perusal of the Collector's impugned order shows that the allotment file was incomplete and even the resumption order of the original lease is not available on the file. No verification had either been made regarding eligibility of allottee, to get alternate land. These reasons, are by themselves sufficient to review the allotment of alternate land even if the other grounds taken by the Collector are ignored because the Board of Revenue's instructions reproduced above have been violated. I therefore do not see any merit in the revision petition which is hereby dismissed.