' This revision calls in question the order dated 8.1-1977 of the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Sargodha by which the order dated 16-9-1976 of the District Collector, Jhang recalling, by way of review, his previous orders dated 5-3-1976 and 7-4-1976 allowing execution of deeds of conveyance in respect of Plots Nos, 7 and 15 in Jhang Sadar in favour of Haq Nawaz petitioner, was partly affirmed and the case was remanded for fresh decision with regard to the grant of proprietary rights in the plots in question after seeking advice from the Board of Revenue.
2. Brief facts are that in the year 1965 the former Government of West Pakistan promulgated a Scheme known as "Residential Accommodation for Government Servants in the Sargodha Division".
The object of the scheme was to resume excessive land attached to the existing bungalows of the Government Officers and some vacant sites at Sargodha, Lyallpur, Mianwali and Jhang dividing the same into plots to be sold by public auction and utilising the sale proceeds to meet the cost of construction of new accommodation for Government servants and of development of the areas. In pursuance of this Scheme 2,450 plots were carved out. Of them 203 were auctioned and 152 purchasers were put in actual possession. In November 1967 the Scheme was abandoned and the Board of Revenue vide its Letter No, 456/71/11/450-CS, dated 1-3-1971 directed that the advances deposited by the those auction-purchasers who were not put in possession be immediately returned to them and those in whose favour the sale of plots had already been confirmed should not be disturbed. It was further directed that the cases of those auction-purchasers in whose favour the sale bad not been confirmed by the Board of Revenue but they had been put in possession by the local authorities, should be separately referred to the Board of Revenue alongwith detailed reports as to the stage of construction on such plots.
3. In this scheme on 27-3-1966. Haq Nawaz petitioner purchased in open auction Plots Nos, 7 and 15, measuring 1 kanal and 14 marks, situated adjacent to the P. W. D. Rest House, Jhang. He paid 1/4th advance price but failed to sign the Memorandum of Offer in accordance with condition 7 of the Scheme and was not therefore placed in possession of the plots in question. About ten years later, the petitioner applied to the District Collector, Jhang for the grant of proprietary rights in the plots purchased by him in open auction. The office accordingly submitted a proposal for the execution of the deeds of conveyance in favour of the petitioner which was approved by the District Collector vide his order dated 5.3-1976 and consequently the deeds were executed on 7-4.1976 and registered on 16-7-1976. After some time, the petitioner applied to the Assistant Commissioner, Jhang for delivery of possession of the plots in question which was accordingly given to him on 4- 9-1976. As the plots in question adjoined the P. W. D. Rest House, the petitioner demolished a portion of the boundary wall of the Rest House. A case was accordingly registered against him with the police. At the same time, the P. W. D. Authorities moved the District Collector for the review of his previous orders dated 5-3-1976 and 7.4-1976 by which permission to the execution of the deeds of conveyance was accorded in favour of the petitioner. The District Collector accordingly recalled these orders, by way of review and cancelled the deeds of conveyance vide his order dated 16-9- 1976 inter alia, on the grounds that the same were obtained by fraud, misrepresentation of facts and in collusion with official staff. Aggrieved by this order the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Additional Commissioner, who maintained the order of the Collector but remanded the case to be decided afresh with regard to the grant of proprietary rights in the disputed plots after seeking advice from the Board of Revenue. The petitioner has now come in revision against this order.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that on deposit of the entire sale price and after execution of the deeds of conveyance, the petitioner had become full owner of the plots and therefore it was not competent to the Collector to have re-opened the case and recalled his previous ing proprietary rights to the petitioner. To support his argument the learned counsel relied on several decisions of the High Court as well as of the Board of Revenue wherein it has been held that after payment of full consideration and execution of conveyance deed, the auction purchaser becomes full owner of the land. But in all these cases payment o full consideration and execution of conveyance deed was duly supported by fulfilment of all other terms and conditions of the sale including deliver of possession of the land which is a condition precedent for the acquisition of any right or title by virtue of section 10 (4) as also of sections 15 and 30 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912. Where the essential condition of having been placed in possession does not obtainon title in the land could be acquired merely on depositing the sale price o obtaining a conveyance deed. As a matter of fact no conveyance deed A could be executed unless tenancy rights were created by delivery o possession, actual or constructive.
Reference in this connection can be usefully made to a decision of the Full Board reported as Daulat Khan v. Mahmood-ul-Hassan (1). In the present case the petitioner was to be placed in possession of the plots in question only after he had signed the Memorandum of Offer in accordance with Condition No, 7 of the Scheme. As the petitioner had neither signed the Memorandum nor taken possession of the plots, he was not entitled to get the proprietary rights or obtain the conveyance deeds in view of Condition No, 19 (1) of the. Scheme.
5. It was further argued that as the petitioner purchased the plots in question at public auction, he was governed by special conditions issued in this behalf and was not subject to the provisions of Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 nor he was bound to take possession of the land purchased by him in terms of section 10 (4) and section 15 for the purpose of acquiring proprietary rights. There is no force in the argument inasmuch as it has been specifically provided in paragraph 8 of the relevant Scheme that the purchaser shall be deemed to be a tenant until he has paid the full price and fulfilled the other conditions of the sale and shall be subject to the provisions of Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912. Section 4 of the 1912 Act provides that all state lands to which the provisions of Government Tenants (Punjab) Act, 1893 have been applied, would be subject to the provisions of 1912 Act. Since the provisions of 1893 Act were applied to all State lands in colony districts including Jhang district vide Punjab Notification No, 1105-S, dated 23rd July 1904, therefore any grant of such lands, whether by way of allotment or by sale through auction or by private treaty, would be subject to the provisions of 1912 Act and the conditions issued under section 10 thereof. Section 10 (4) of the said Act lays down that no person shall be deemed to be a tenant or have any right, or title in the land until he has taken possession of the land allotted/purchased by him with the permission of the Collector. Again, section 15 as also paragraph 8 of the conditions issued under section 10 provide that a purchaser who has been placed in possession of the land by the order of the Collector shall be deemed to be a tenant of such land until he has paid the full price and fulfilled the other conditions of the B sale as set forth in the statement of conditions. Paragraph 7 of the conditions lays down that after the purchaser has paid the sum and signed the Memorandum of Offer he will be placed in possession of the land by an officer appointed by the Collector on payment of Rs, 6 per plot as demarcation fee. In the instant case, the petitioner had neither signed the Memorandum of Offer nor had ever been placed on possession of the land by the order of a competent authority. The mere fact that he paid the full price of the land was not sufficient to confer proprietary rights on him, unless
(1) PLD 1962 Rev. 77 he had been duly placed in possession of the land by the order of the Collector and had fulfilled the other conditions of the sale set-forth in the statement of conditions.
6. There is also no room for an argument that the Collector was not competent to review his previous orders. Section 7 of 1912 Act makes the provisions of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act and Punjab Tenancy Act, applicable to all proceedings under the said Act. Since the auction proceedings taken in the present case were subject to the provisions of the 1912 Act, therefore, the Collector was fully competent to review his orders under section 163 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967, as also under section 82 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887, by virtue of applicability of section 7 of 1912 Act.
7. In 'view of the foregoing reasons it is obvious that the petitioner was not entitled to acquire proprietary rights to get the deeds of conveyance executed in his favour without having first been placed in possession of the plots in question by the order of the Collector in accordance with paragraph 7 of the Conditions and in terms of sections 10 (4) and 15 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912. As he was not placed in C possession of the plots in dispute he had neither become a tenant nor he had acquired any right or title in the said plots and consequently the deeds of conveyance executed in his favour were void ab initio and of no legal consequence. In the result the revision petition fails and it is hereby rejected. The Collector need not refer the case to the Board of Revenue as directed by the Additional Commissioner.