' Muhammad Hayat who obtained lease of State land measuring 400 kanals under 10 years temporary cultivation lease scheme on 24th of May, 1968 applied for grant of proprietary rights. His request was rejected by District Collector vide his order, dated 6th of April, 1989 on the ground that since he was an owner of 246 Kanals, 1 Marla of land, he was ineligible to acquire proprietary rights of the leased land under Notification, dated 3rd of September, 1979. During the hearing of his application, Muhammad Ali and Mushtaq Ahmad, real brothers of the lessee pleaded before Collector that the subject land was obtained jointly by them but Muhammad Hayat in collusion with Colonies office succeeded in getting the grant drawn up in his name. Their appeal was also rejected. Mushtaq Ahmad, etc. Then filed writ petition in the Honourable High Court which was withdrawn by them on 24th of April, 1989. They then preferred application before District Collector for grant of proprietary rights of the land as sub-tenants under Notification, dated 3rd of September, 1979. Muhammad Hayat again applied for grant of proprietary rights. These applications were jointly heard by District Collector and vide order, dated 4th of December, 1990 the requests of Muhammad Hayat for grant of proprietary rights and extension of the lease as well as petitions of Mushtaq, etc. On similar ' score were rejected. Three appeals by Muhammad Hayat, Bashir Ahmad and Muhammad Ali were filed before Commissioner, Bahawalpur Division. These appeals were disposed of vide single order, dated 31st of August, 1994 whereas the claim of Muhammad Ali and Bashir Ahmad of being sub-tenants of the subject land qualifying for grant of proprietary rights was rejected, appeal of Muhammad Hayat was partly accepted and he was allowed to have extension of his lease in accordance with instructions of the Board of Revenue.
Muhammad Ali, and Mushtaq Ahmad have filed this revision against the said order of Commissioner, Bahawalpur Division.
2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that although Muhammad Hayat was successful bidder in the public action of the subject land, yet no tenancy had been constituted in his favour because the bid was not approved by District Collector. It was contended that Muhammad Hayat was neither eligible to acquire proprietary rights of the subject land nor did he fulfil the conditions for extension of the lease. It is the case of the petitioners that they being sub- tenants were eligible to acquire proprietary rights under para. 13(b) of Notification, dated 3rd of September, 1979.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent No,1 contended that his lease has been extended under Notifications No,10993-77/185-CLI, dated 7th of January, 1978, No,5361-82/2664-CLI, dated 18th July, 1992 and No,7402- 94/4514-CLI, dated 27th November, 1994. It is submitted by counsel for the respondent that the subject lease could be resumed only if it was required for public purpose. The respondent No,1 through his counsel categorically denied that the petitioners were his sub-tenants.
4. Whether the present petitioners are sub-tenants of the land is a determination of fact. Their case was disapproved twice by District Collector. Commissioner also on the same ground rejected their claim. The petition, therefore, is devoid of any force and as such is rejected. As regards the extension of lease in favour of Muhammad Hayat as per directions contained in the impugned order, Commissioner erred in appreciating the contents of various Notification issued by the Board of Revenue. Under Notification No,1999-82/1206-CLI, dated 27th of March, 1982 on the subject of extension of lease of state land allotted under defunct 10 years lease scheme of 1968, it is laid down that leases of subject grants were eligible got extension of their leases upto Rabi 1983 or Rabi 1984 provided the concerned lessee was either landless tenant or owner of less than 4 acres of land and was also self-cultivator. Once again in Notification, dated 25th of June, 1990, the Board directed that the current policy required that no lease of temporary cultivation exceeding subsistence holding could be granted to any individual. It was clarified that leases of area in excess of subsistence holding should not be renewed and surplus area should be put to fresh auction. As per policy contained under Notification, dated 27th of November, 1994, extension was allowed in favour of those lessees of State land who were self-cultivators and either landless or owners of less than 4 acres of land. Admittedly Muhammad Hayat was and is owner of 246 Kanals and 1 Marla. He, therefore, does not qualify for extension of lease of the subject land. The land, therefore, should immediately be resumed from Muhammad Hayat and included in the schedule of land to be leased out under Temporary Cultivation Lease Scheme in accordance with instructions of the Board. The order of Commissioner in this fespect is set aside.
5. Arguments in this case were heard on 11-3-1999 and judgment reserved which has now been announced and may be conveyed. To Commissioner, Bahawalpur Division, District Collector Bahawalnagar and through him to the parties.