Muhammad Siddique was leased the disputed land in May, 1971 for a period of 15 years from Kharif 1971 onwards. He deposited the rent for Kharif 1971 and Rabi 1972. But he was not put in possession.
However, Mutation No.99 was entered in 1974 and sanctioned on 23-2-1977, giving effect to his lease.
2. Allah Ditta was allotted land under Grow More Food Scheme in 1958 in different villages. That land was resumed from him. He alongwith his brother Muhammad Bakhsh presented a copy of the Jamabandi to the Assistant Commissioner/Collector on 17-12-1973 with the application that alternative land (disputed land) was available and should be allotted to them. On the same date this land, which had previously been allotted under 15 years' lease scheme to Muhammad Siddique, was allotted to the two brothers Allah Ditta and Muhammad Bakhsh. Mutation No. 100 was sanctioned on 23-2-1977 cancelling Mutation No. 99, and Mutation No. 101 was sanctioned on the same date namely 23-2-1973 allotting this land to Allah Ditta and his brother. All this was done under the order of the Assistant Commissioner/Collector dated 17-12-1973 (wrongly mentioned). .
3. The appeal of Muhammad Siddique to the Additional Commissioner was rejected by the latter on 26-5-1988. By that order, however, the Additional Commissioner also held that Allah Ditta and his brother Muhammad Bakhsh were not entitled to this land and he, therefore, resumed the land from them as well. Hence these two revision petitions.
4I will dispose of these two cases on the following considerations (i)Muhammad Siddique was a genuine allottee and he had also paid the rent in advance for the first year. The allotment order, dated the 30th May, 1971, says that "the tenant will immediately be put in possession to the allotted land'. It further says that 'Parcha Dakhal should accordingly be issued". (This order uses the word tenant for the allottee even before he has been put in possession). The order of allotment clearly says that it is the responsibility of the State to immediately put the allottee in possession, and to issue ' Parcha Dakhal' accordingly. But unfortunately this was not done despite the payment of advance rent by the allottee. The spirit of section 10(4) of the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912, is not that a person may be allotted land by the Collector with one hand, and the allottee may be kept away from the land i.e. Not put in possession, with the other, through a dilatory or even perverse tactics, and yet the Collector/State may get away with this negligence or even perversity under the provision of section 10(4). Such a reading of this subsection would be very perverse indeed. When the State assumes the responsibility of itself putting the allottee in possession, then its functionary viz. The Collector is bound to act on it, or show that the allottee himself was not willing to come forward and take possession. This is not the case of the State here, and the file is also silent as to it,. I would, therefore, hold that under the terms of allotment, Muhammad Saddique had become a tenant even before he was put in possession, and in any case. After the payment of the advance rent, it had become the responsibility of the Collector to hand over the possession to him and issue 'Parcha Dakhal' unless the default could be shown to have occurred on the part of the allottee--which is not the position taken by the State.
I would, therefore, hold that the provisions of section '10(4) of the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912, shall be deemed to have been fulfilled in the present case. When nothing further is to be done by an allottee, and it is the turn of the State/Collector to act and not the allottee in possession, and if then the State/Collector fails to act, it shall always 6e construed that the requirement of section 10(4) have been fulfilled.
(ii)In view of the above position is was essential for the Collector on 17-12-1973 to hear Muhammad Siddique before allotting the land to Allah Ditta and his brother Muhammad Bakhsh. He did not do so, and therefore his order shall be inoperative against Muhammad Siddique.
(iii)In any case, the allotment of Muhammad Siddique was never cancelled and his land was never resumed after giving him notice.
(iv)It is interesting to note that the order dated 17-12-1973 is not by any stretch of the imagination an order of resumption.
(v)The consequence of the above is that once Mutation No.99 had been sanctioned, the order dated 17-12-1973 could not form a ground for its cancellation, as was done through Mutation No.
100. Mutation No.99 was in the field, order dated 17-12-1973 did not speak of any resumption or cancellation, and therefore, Mutation No. 100 was groundless and void.
(vi)Similarly Mutation No. 101 is bad and void.
(vii) Lastly, the facts concerning the allotment to Allah Ditta and his brother Muhammad Bakhsh speak of indecent haste. They put in their application alongwith a copy of Jamabandi on 17-12- 1973. And the allotment was made to them on the same date. To say the least about it, such speed is indeed significant.
5. ' In view of the above, I would accept the petition of Muhammad Siddique and reject the petition of Allah Ditta and his brother Muhammad Bakhsh. The result is that the original 15 years' lease shall be deemed to stand in favour of Muhammad Siddique, in so far as the order dated 17-12-1973 of the Assistant Commissioner/Collector is concerned, and in so far as the order dated 26-5-1988 of the Additional Commissioner is concerned; the Mutations Nos. 100 and 101 shall also be deemed not to have been in existence, and Mutation No.99 shall be deemed to be still valid. However, the present Courts order is strictly in relation to the order of the Collector dated 17-12-1973 and the orders and decisions based on it and supporting it. The present Court is not concerned with the fact whether Muhammad Siddique shall still be considered a lessee/allottee under his lease, which is for the Collector to determine considering the nature of his case and the policy of the Government relevant to it.
6. As regards Muhammad Yar, he has no locus standi in this case as he is appearing for the first time in this litigation, and the present Court cannot give him any relief if he wants allotment of this land as Lambardar, for which he will have to go to the proper Authority if and when the land is available.
When nothing further is to be done by an allottee, and it is the turn of the State/Collector to act to put the allottee in possession, and if the State/Collector fails to act, it shall always be contrued that the requirements of section 10(4) have been fulfilled.