' This revision petition has been taken cognizance of on remand from the Honourable High Court, Multan Bench, Multan in Writ Petition No,241 of 2000. In its order, dated 26-4-2000, Honourable High Court has remanded the case for decision on its merits.
2. The instant revision petition was preferred in this Court against the order, dated 1-6-1988 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Multan Division, Multan which was dismissed in default and through the order of my predecessor, dated 17-8-1999 the restoration application was rejected. The detailed facts leading to the present revision petition have already been discussed by my learned predecessor in the said order and the same are not required to be discussed here again.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have minutely gone through the record of the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner assails the impugned order on the ground that Niamat alias Amanat Ali was allotted Lot No,12 situated in Chak No,497/EB, TehsiI Burewala, District Vehari under 15 years lease scheme in the year 1971. However, before the completion of 15 years, Niamat died in the year 1978. Under section 19-A of the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912 and as held in 1998 SCM R 388, the tenancy should have been devolved on all the legal heirs of Niamat Ali after his death. But instead of doing so, tenancy was transferred only to respondent Rehmat, who is brother of deceased illegally. Then the A.C./Collector's order transferring the lot in favour of all the legal heirs was passed. But on appeal the said order of the A.C./Collector, dated 21- 7-1985 was set aside and lot was ordered to remain exclusively in favour of the respondent Rehmat. Therefore, by accepting the revision petition, the impugned order may be set aside.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents states that the respondent Rehmat Ali became an independent lessee in the year 1978 for one year after the death of Niamat and he being the tenant in his own independent right was fully entitled to get the entire area in his favour for which proprietary rights have also been ordered and price has also been paid by the respondent of major portion of the land. Relying upon the notification, dated 24-4-1971, it was argued that it is discretion of the Government to transfer the tenancy on the demise of the tenant to anyone or all the legal heirs, therefore, no illegality has been committed by the lower forums.
Hence the impugned order may be maintained.
5. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it transpires that this case has a chequered history of litigation. The area in dispute was initially allotted to Niamat in the year 1971. On his death in the year 1978 his brother Rehmat, present respondent got the area transferred in his name and get him self-declared eligible for grant of proprietary rights without involving any of the legal heirs of deceased Niamat. When this transfer in favour of Rehmat was challenged by the legal heirs, the case was remanded by the Additional Commissioner to the Assistant Commissioner, who declared all the legal heirs as eligible for transfer of the lot. However, in appeal, the learned lower Court has again upset the A.C.'s order determining all the legal heirs eligible for transfer. When the case came up in the Board of Revenue, the revision petition was dismissed in default against which the petitioner went to the High Court in writ petition from where the case was remanded after hearing the parties.
6. Today, after hearing the .Parties, the only law point for determination which emerges is whether the temporary lease/tenancy will devolve upon all the legal heirs on the demise of the lessee/tenant or it will go to one of the legal heirs. The main provision of the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912 on the subject is section 19-A which has been asserted through amendment and which reads as under:-- "When after coming into force of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) (Amendment)
Act, 1951, any Muslim tenant dies, succession to the tenancy shall devolve on his heirs in accordance with the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) and nothing contained in sections 20 to 23 of this Act shall be applicable to his case."
7. Since law on the subject is quite clear, I think there could not be two opinions on the subject. After the death of any tenant, all the legal heirs are entitled to succeed to whatever rights persist to the tenant. Since in this case, the tenant died even before the application for proprietary rights or even before declaration of eligibility for proprietary rights, therefore, his only right was that of a temporary tenant under 15 years lease scheme and those rights were to go to all the legal heirs.
Therefore, by accepting the present revision, the impugned order is set aside and it is hereby ordered that the tenancy of Niamat Ali which he was holding under 15 years lease scheme be devolved/transferred to all the legal heirs of Niamat Ali. Deputy Commissioner, Vehari will first determine all the legal heirs of Niamat 'Ali and then order accordingly for transfer of tenancy in their favour. Only then all the legal heirs will be allowed to apply for the grant of proprietary rights which will be considered in the light of policy/instructions of the Board of Revenue on the subject.
So far as declaration of eligibility of the respondents for proprietary rights is concerned that is also set aside and if any price has been paid by the respondent that may be refunded to him. A copy of this order may be sent to the Deputy Commissioner, Vehari for further necessary action. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.