ORDER SHAHZAD HASSAN PERVEZ, MEMBER (JUDICIAL-I)- The land in dispute measuring 99 Kanals, 19 Marlas comprising Khasras Nos. 75/19 to 22, 97/1 to 3, 9 to 12, 20 and 21 situated in Mauza Gungle Barali, Tehsil and District Vehari, reserved under Pedigree Livestock Breeding Scheme was allotted to Sajawal, predecessor-in-interest of Allah Dad, petitioner, who was Lambardar of Chak No. 192/EB, Tehsil and District, Vehari, vide order of C.A./Collector No. 5425/TC, dated 9.8.1966. Referring to the order of C.A/Collector wherein it is specifically mentioned that the land having been attached with the office of Lambardar will pass on to the successor of the office after Sajawal, it was stated that proprietary rights of the It could not be conferred on the holder of the lease. The learned counsel for the petitioners referred to Notification No. 2525-86/530- B, dated 30.4.1986 of the Board of Revenue wherein it was clarified that successor-in-interest, so far as Lambardari grants under the defunct Pedigree Livestock Breeding Scheme are concerned, would mean a person who succeeds to the Lambardari office. It is stated that Muhammad Yar son of Allah Dad is at present Lambardar of the estate. Therefore, this It should be allotted to him. In this regard, the learned counsel placed reliance on PLD 1988 Revenue 64 and 1986 CLC 1950. In this case, Lambardari It was included in Gallantry Awards Scheme and on selection of a person to the office of Lambardar, it was again reverted to as Lambardari grant, the respondent, it is stated, is an illicit occupant of this land which was reserved as Lambardari grant. The case of the respondent is that owing to his illicit occupation he has a right over this land.
2. It is stated by learned counsel for the respondents that the land in question was allotted to Sajawal under 10 years Temporary Cultivation Lease Scheme in 1966 and not as Lambardari grant.
In 1972, this land was resumed from Sajawal and was included in the schedule of Temporary Cultivation Lease Scheme. Alam Sher son of Sajawal, who became Lambardari after the demise of his father, submitted an application to A.C/Collector that the land which was allotted to this father may be allotted to him. This application was declined by A.C/Collector. Appeal against this order before Additional Commissioner was rejected on 31.12.1978. Alam Sher then submitted an application to Commissioner which was sent to District Collector for examination. Alam Sher, however, got lease of this land under Temporary Cultivation Lease Scheme. Abdul Sattar, the present respondent who was a sub-tenant of the land in question submitted an application that Alam Sher is owner of land more than 4 acres and as such was not entitled to acquire lease of the land under Temporary Cultivation Lease Scheme. The land was resumed and again included of the schedule of Temporary Cultivation Lease Scheme. Muhammad Aslam and Abdul Sattar who had been cultivating the land under Sajawal and latter under Alam Sher were entered in the revenue record as sub-tenants.
3. I have given careful consideration to the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and examined the record. The impugned order of Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Multan Division, dated 17th June, 1991 is set aside and the case is remanded to District Collector, Vehari with the following directions :-
(i) to ascertain on the basis of record and other facts whether the subject land was reserved under Lambardari grant and if so action should be taken in accordance with the instructions of the Board of Revenue.
(ii) It is stated by learned counsel for the respondent that in case Tawan is imposed on an illicit occupant and he deposits the same, his status is deemed to be that of a tenant of the state land.
He requested that the respondent may be allowed to purchase the said land. The right, if any, which may accrue to the respondent being in cultivating possession of the subject land as illicit occupant, as is stated by learned counsel for the respondent, may be considered if there are any instructions issued by the Board of Revenue in the Colonies Department on the subject. The order of Additional Commissioner with reference to para 13 of the Notification dated 3.9.1979 is misconceived as the said para of the Notification is only for the grant of proprietary rights. The land is situated within prohibited zone of which proprietary rights could not be granted. As such para 13 is not relevant to he facts of the case. The impugned order of Additional Commissioner suffers from legal lacuna. Under the instructions of the Board of Revenue, the state land under prohibited belt is leased out for a limited period. An illicit occupant cannot be allowed to enjoy a non-existent tenancy with disposal of the land left at the discretion of the Colony Wing of Deputy Commissioner office."
(c) Possession of the land will be affected only after the order of the District Collector.