RAZA ALI, MEMBER.- These two review petitions have been preferred by the petitioners against the orders dated 6-8-1986, whereby the learned former Member (Colonies), rejected the revision petitions R.O.R. No. 3203/85 filed by Alamgir and R.O.R. No. 3230/85, filed by Mumtaz deceased father of Alamgir, etc. Petitioners.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners in review No. 35/87 was allotted State land measuring 71 kanals, 7 marlas comprising khasra Nos. 1,2,3,4/1 of Sqr. No.7 and khasra Nos. 3-2,4,to 8 of Sqr. No. 8 in Chak No. 57/DB, under 15 Years Lease Scheme in 1970-71. Similarly, Mumtaz deceased father of Alamgir etc. Was allotted state land measuring 48 kanals, 1 maria comprising khasra Nos.
4/2,5 to 10 of Sqr No.7 and 11/1 of Sqr No. 48, in the same Chak under 15 Years Lease Scheme. Alamgir petitioner and his father Mumtaz deceased separately applied for grant of proprietary rights under Notification of 3.9.1979. Request of both the allottees was refused on the ground that they had not applied for the same before the crucial date. The matter was challenged upto Member (Colonies), who rejected revision petitions of both Alamgir petitioner and Mumtaz deceased vide his separate orders dated 6-8-1986. Hence these two separate review petitions, which are being disposed of Vith this single order.
3. I have heard arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners and have perused the record.
4. In both the cases the proprietary rights were refused to Alamgir petitioner and his father Mumtaz deceased on the ground that they had not applied for the grant of proprietary rights before the crucial date. I, however, observed that the petitioners might not have been eligible to obtain the proprietary rights, but their lease could have been extended under the Government instructions.
However, it is felt that Alamgir son of Mumtaz deceased was not entitled to get lease of another lot when his father was also a lessee. I, therefore, hold that lease of Alamgir petitioner has rightly be cancelled. His Review Petition No. 35/87 is, therefore, rejected. The lease of Mumtaz deceased father of Alamgir is hereby restored, increasing the same 110 kanals to be made up from the lot of Alamgir which should be devolved on all his legal heirs according to Shariat Law, extending the tenure of lease upto Rabi 1995. The legal heirs'of the deceased Mumtaz should deposit all the arrears/dues for his lot, within three months.
5. With the above observations both the review petitions are disposed of.