S.M. NASIM, J.- These are four revision petitions against the order of Commissioner Sargodha dated 29.1.1984 whereby he dismissed 'the appeals of the petitioners and upheld the order of DC/Collector, Sargodha dated 13.11.1983 vide which he did not allow the proprietary rights of the following lands to the petitioners which were with them under temporary cultivation scheme on the grounds that the land of Chak No. 81/NB was situated within the prohibited zone of Municipal Corporation Sargodha:-Narne of the appellant. Particulars of land on lease.
1. Muhammad Feroze. Sqr. No.48/9 to l2, 19, 20.2. Shahdat Khan. Sqr. No. 43/1, 2, 10,24,25, Sqr. No. 42/9 to 14.3. Atta Muhammad. Sqr. No. 19/1 to 5, Sqr. No. 25/1, 2,9, 10,11,12,20 half.4. Mian Muhammad. Sqr.
No. 6/7, Sqr. No. 14/9/2, 15,1, Sqr. No. 16/1 to 5,6/1,6/2,7/1, 7/2,8/1,8/2,9/1,9/2,. 10/1. 10/2. 11.12,13 min.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. He contended that when the lands were leased out to the petitioners in year 1971 the lands were banjar qadeem and were outside the prohibited zone of Sargodha which at that the was 1st Class Municipal Committee., He contended that the Government formulated the policy of granting proprietary rights to such lessees vide its Notification dated3.9.1979 and the applications to purchase the land were to be made upto 29.2.1980. He argued that at that the Sargodha had the same status of 1st Class Municipal Committee and the limit of prohibited zone was 5 miles from the outer limits of the Municipal Committee. He contended that the petitioners filed applications to purchase the land within the prescribed period. He contended that the cases of the petitioners were examined by the AC/Collector who recommended the cases to the DC/Collector to allow the proprietary rights. He contended that the Sargodha Municipal Committee was raised to the status of Municipal Corporation on 31.3.1981 and the limits of prohibited zone were to be considered ten miles from the outer limits of the corporation and thus the Deputy Commissioner/Collector considering the limits of prohibited zone to. Be ten miles rejected the applications of the petitioners. He argued that the DC/Collector did not provide any opportunity to the petitioners but decided the case on the report of the CA/Coilector who on the second the had recommended the rejection of applications. He contended that the Commissioner without calling the record of the lower Court and without considering that Sargodha Municipal Committee was raised to the status of Municipal Corporation on 31.3.1981, treated the prohibited zone.As often miles and with his single order dismissed the appeals. He argued that neither the order of the DC/Collector was a speaking order nor the Commissioner considered the facts as Well as law point involved in these cases. He urged that the impugned order be set aside.
3. I have considered the arguments and perused the record of the cases. Theorder passed by the DC/Collector was not a speaking order. He in his impugned order in each case had not thrashed out whether the petitioners had applied for the proprietary rights of the disputed and within the, whether they were lessee or not and if lessee then of which area, whether they had self-cultivated the land or not and fulfilled the other conditions, whether at the the of applying for proprietary rights, the status of Sargodha was that of Municipal Committee orMunicipal Corporation and what were the limits at that the. The cases are required to be thrashed out individually as discussed as indicated above and then to be decided. The cases are, therefore, remanded to the DC/Collector Sargodha for fresh decision after considering all the legal points and facts of the cases.