' This revision petition has been directed against the order dated 294-1977 of the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Multan by which the order dated 30-8-1976 of the District Collector, Sahiwal ejecting the petitioner from the disputed kbasra number under section 32/34 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912, was upheld.
2. Brief facts are that Khasra No, 14661 situated in Ghalla Mandl, Sahiwal has been shown, in the Register Haqdaran Zamin, as a thoroughfare belonging to the provincial Government. The petitioner built a shop on this Khasra number and thereby blocked the approach to the Mandl. The respondent moved the Collector for the removal of the encroachment, who after enquiry, passed an order on 30-5-1976 directing ejectment of the petitioner under section 32/34 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912. The petitioner contested this order in appeal before the Additional Commissioner who rejected the same on 29-6-1977. Hence this revision petition.
3. The impugned order has been assailed on two-fold grounds firstly that the Khasra number in dispute was duly allotted to the petitioner, and secondly that after he had been placed in possession of this Khasra number, the petitioner had acquired the status of a tenant and was therefore not liable to be ejected under section 32/34 of the Act, 1912 without observing the procedure laid down under paragraph 25 of the Martial Law Regulation No, 115 as enunciated in case, Muhammad Yousaf v. Province of Punjab (i). I do not see any force in these contentions.
According to the entries in the Register Haqdaran Zamin for the year 1956-57, the Khasra number in dispute has been shown as a thoroughfare belonging to the Provincial Government and was therefore not available for allotment. If any order A regarding its allotment was ever passed in favour of the petitioner, it was without lawful authority and therefore void and of no legal effect. As to the other contention of the petitioner it will be observed that under the Land Reforms Act, 1977 a person holdling state land has been specifically excluded from the definition of a "tenant" and therefore the safeguards provided under paragraph 25 of Martial Law Regulation 115 were not B available to the petitioner. In this connection section 2(12) of the Land Reforms Act, 1977 wherein the term 'tenant" has been defined may be read with advantage. "'tenant' means a person who holds land under another person, and is, or but for a special contract would be liable to pay rent for that land to that other person and includes the predecessors and successors-in-interest of such person but does not include-
(a) ...................... , of
(b) a person holding State land in any manner and for any purpose, or (c)
' Again, in section 30 of the said Act it has been laid down that "the provisions of this Act, and any rule or order made thereunder, shall have effect notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any law for the time being in force, o in any order or decree of a Court or tribunal or other authority or in any rule or custom or usage or in any contract, instrument, deed or other document."
4. From the above provisions of the Land Reforms Act, 1977 it is manifestly clear that a person holding State land cannot be treated to be "tenant" for the purposes of land reforms and therefore cannot claim protection under paragraph 25 of Martial Law Regulation No,
115. It is also clear that with the promulgation of the Land Reforms Act, 1977 which tend to override all other laws including orders and decrees passed by the Courts, the rule laid down by the High Court in Muhammad Yousaf v. Rovince of Punjab has become nugatory and, therefore has no application cases of State tenancies.
5. In view of the above I am inclined to hold that all tenants of State will continue to be governed by the provisions of Colonization of Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 and statements of conditions issued
(1) PLD 1976 Lab, 328 thereunder and any person committing any breach of such conditions shall be liable to action including ejectment from his tenancy in accordance with the provisions of the said Act. In this view of the matter the petitioner has been rightly ejected under section 32/34 of the Act, 1912.
Consequently the revision petition fails and it is hereby rejected.