AITZAZ-UR-RASHID KHAN, MEMBER (COLONIES).- This petition has been preferred against the order dated 19.6.2000 passed by the Commissioner, Sargodha Division, Sargodha, whereby he rejected the petitioners' appeal.
2. Briefly, the facts of this case, are that land measuring 110 kanals and 8 marlas comprising khasras Nos. 1, 6, 7 to 11, 12-A, 12-B, 13 to 25 of square No. 65/8 situated in Chak No. 127/SB, Tehsil Sillanwali, District Sargodha was leased out for a period of five years from Kharif, 1979 to Rabi 1984 to Muhammad Ibrahim under 5 Years Temporary Cultivation Lease Scheme. The lessee died in December, 1981, but the present petitioners did not apply for transfer of the lease for the unexpired period in their names as legal heirs. The land, however, continued to be with the legal heirs of the lessee upto the expiry of the period of lease i.e. Rabi 1984. The request of Muhammad Hanif, one of the petitioners for payment of rent and extension of lease was rejected by the C.A./Collector, Sargodha vide order dated 26.10.1994. His appeal was rejected by the Commissioner, Sargodha Division, Sargodha on 3.7.1995. The land was included in the schedule for auction of state land under Temporary Cultivation Lease Scheme. Subsequently, the land was auctioned in favour Behrman Ullah and Abdul Waheed on 24.4.1995 and was confirmed on the same date i.e. On 24.4.1995 by the District Collector. The petitioners find revision petition against the order dated 3.7.1995. The learned Member (Judicial-ll), vide order dated 26.10.1996, remanded the case to the District Collector for fresh decision after hearing all the parties concerned by setting aside the order of the lower Courts, In remand proceedings, the D.C./District Collector, vide order dated 15.7J999, dismissed the application of the petitioners. He also ordered inclusion of land in the Schedule for fresh auction. The appeal find by the petitioners was dismissed by the Commissioner, Sargodha Division, Sargodha vide impugned order dated 19.6.2000. Hence this revision petition.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and have examined the record available on the file, It is contended that the original allottee had paid lagan upto 1984 and, on his death, the petitioners were entitled to the transfer of tenancy in their favour under Section 19 the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912. It was stated that they applied for transfer of the tenancy in their names, but their request was rejected, It was further contended that the petitioners were entitled to the conferment of proprietary rights under Notifications dated 20.4.1983 and 19.3.1995 issued by the Board of Revenue. He argued that the land in question remained in possession of the petitioners even after the auction of the land to other persons in 1994. It was further argued that the petitioners were eligible for extension of lease as well as conferment of proprietary rights as they had brought the land under plough by incurring huge expenses. According to the learned counsel, the Courts below had not appreciated the merits of the case while disposing of the application and appeal of the petitioners.
4. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners and have examined the record available on the file. The prayers preferred by the legal heirs for conferment of proprietary rights under the relevant notification of the Board of Revenue issued in 198 does not provide any relief to the petitioners, It is conceded that the land in question continues to reads as Banjar Qadeem in revenue record. The land was included in the schedule for auction of state land under Temporary Cultivation Lease Scheme, 1995 and was put to auction. The land was formally resumed in favour of the state in 1996 but the possession of the suit land was not passed on to the bidder in the auction conducted in 1995. The cultivation of land to a required extent was a condition precedent to consideration of request for grant of proprietary rights in the schemes introduced in 1983 and 1995. In view of no portion of the land having been brought under plough by the original lessee Ibrahim or his legal heirs for the period from Kharif 1984 to Rabi 1996 when the possession of the land was taken back from him formally on resumption in favour of the state, no case is made out for consideration of the request of the legal heirs of Ibrahim for conferment of proprietary rights or continuance of the lease.
5. Mere continuance to hold the land despite rejection of the plea of the petitioners for' transfer of the tenancy in their names as legal heirs does not provide any strength to the case of the petitioners. Land has to be validly held by a tenant for consideration of his case for conferment of proprietary rights under a scheme.
6. The ground that non-cultivation of area to the required extent was a rectifiable breach cannot remain available to a lessee for an indefinite period of time. The petitioners did not bring the land leased out to their predecessor-in-interest under plough at all within the original period of lease or, for that matter, even thereafter. If they had applied to the competent authority to allow them extension in time for rectification of this breach after publication of the scheme envisaging conferment of proprietary rights seeking extension in time to bring the land under plough to the required extent or inability to make payment towards conferment of proprietary rights in light of the terms and conditions provided under the Scheme expressing genuine difficulties, their request could have been considered by the Collector, In case the Collector, on consideration of the facts, came to the conclusion that circumstances narrated by the petitioners merited consideration, he was competent to allow extension for a reasonable time to enable the petitioners to rectify the breach depending on the nature of the breach, In the absence of any such request having been preferred by the petitioners or having dealt with by the District Collector, the plea of the breach being rectifiable cannot remain available to the petitioners without any limitation of time. There are no grounds to interfere with the Commissioner's order. The petition is accordingly rejected.