AITZAZ-UR-RASHID KHAN, MEMBER (COLONIES).-- This petition has been preferred against the order dated 22.6.2000 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Faisalabad Division, Faisalabad, whereby he dismissed the petitioner's appeal.
2. Briefly, the facts of this case are that the petitioner was illegal occupant of the land measuring 26 kanals and 16 marlas comprising khasras Nos. 17/13/2, 14/2, 17, 18 situated in Chak No. 610/GB, Tehsil Tandalianwala. The A.C./Collector, Tandalianwala vide order dated 30.7.1999 initiated proceedings under Section 32/34 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 for ejectment of Ahmad Saee, the present petitioner and his brother namely Nosher. The petitioner's appeal find against, this order was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Faisalabad Division, Faisalabad vide impugned order dated 22.6.2000. Hence this revision petition.
3. I have; heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, It is contended that the petitioner was a sub- tenant under one Noor Muhammad son of Hera and on this account was entitled to the grant of proprietary rights, It is further contended that the ejectment order has been passed by the A.C./Collector without issuing notice under Section 24 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 and affording him an opportunity of being heard. He further contended that the petitioner has developed the land with hard labour and he is ready to deposit the Government dues.
4. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and have examined the record available on the file. A perusal of the photo-copies of the Register Khasra Girdawari indicates Ahmad Saee the petitioner, to be qn illegal occupant of Khasras Nos. 17/13/2, 14/2, 17 and 18 measuring 26 kanals and 16 marlas. There is nothing on record to show that he was a sub-tenant under the original allottee, It is, therefore, not necessary to examine whether the sub- tenant was eligible for grant of proprietary rights under the Scheme on which he basis his claim to the exclusion of the original allottee. A sub tenant can be considered for allotment of land when it is proved that he was not engaged by the tenant as such from the date of cultivation that would be relevant to determine the eligibility of a tenant in case he were not there. Any possession of the sub tenant fro a date subsequent to the date of eligibility laid down in a Scheme would not entitle him to consideration. Similarly, the possession of an allotted piece of land by a person claiming to be a sub-tenant over and above the head of the original tenant does not confer the status of sub- tenant on him. An illegal occupant can is no case substitute a sub tenant. The general principle for allotment of land to a sub tenant where provided is that the entitlement of the original tenant should first be fulfilled and if any land in the original tenancy is left out after satisfying the claim of the tenant in terms of the Scheme so 'noticed, if may be considered for allotment where provided, In any case, the sub tenant's right to a tenancy cannot override that of the original tenant as his status as such is subservient to him. There are no ground to disagree, with the findings of the learned Additional Commissioner. The revision petition is accordingly rejected.