' The dispute in this case is about an area of 143 acres, 1 kanal and 8 marlas comprised of Lot No, 1 and situated in Chak No, 74-8/15-L Tehsil Khanewal, District Multan. It is a state land which along with certain other area was in occupation of Pir Mohi-ud-Din Lal Badshah (Pir of Mukhad) as a lessee for a period of 20 years The lease was to expire in Rabi 1973. Pir Mohi-ud-Din Lal Badshah, who was a land owner and whose extent of land already exceeded the permissible ceiling under the provisions of M. L. R. 64 of 1959 surrendered the aforesaid area or 3rd June 1959,-(see order of the Deputy Land Commissioner, Mohan, of that date ; copy placed on record). What happened between the period 3rd June 1959 to 20th November 1961, is not clear on the present record and all that is available is that the Provincial Government on 20th November 1961, leased out the said area to one Raja Nadir Khan earlier for one year then for the unexpired portion of lease upto Rabi 1973 on the same terms and conditions as were of the lease of the previous lessee Pir Mohi-udDin Lal Badshah. It appears that Raja Nadir Khan defaulted in payment of the lease dues to the Government, whereupon his lease was cancelled and resumed on 3rd October 1973. The land during the period 3rd October 1973 to 7th March 1975, however remained in physical possession of the respondents who clamed to be its tenants.
2. The Government on 7th March 1975, then decided to allot this land to Syed Abrar Hussain Shah, the present petitioner, with the condition that the tenants, however, shall remain in possession. The matter was then taken up by the learned Deputy Commissioner, who was also the Deputy Land Commissioner, on the move of the respondents-(the details of that move or of application(s) need not be gone into). The Deputy Commissioner, on 10th March 1976, held that it was purely a state land which bad been occupied by the then sitting tenants in an unauthorised manner. In view of the aforesaid status of the then sitting tenants, he observed that the grant of lease to Syed Abrar Hussain Shah, the present writ petitioner, was valid. The former lease deed in favour of the present writ petitioner was executed by the Government on 29th March 1975.
3. Respondents 4 to 28 who, as already stated, claim to be the then sitting tenants of the land, filed an appeal against the order of the Deputy Commissioner/Deputy Land Commissioner, dated 10th March 1976, before the Commissioner, Multan.
4. During the pendency of that appeal, however, the said respondents on 28th April 1976, themselves moved an application to the Chairman, Federal Land Commission (Annex. 'G') invoking the suo motu revisional jurisdiction of the Federal Government as contained in paras. 29 of M. L. R.
115 of 1972 which was being exercised by the Chairman and other members of the Commission as delegated of the Federal Government. The learned Chairman on 10 the July 1976, according to the petitioner, without waiting for the finalisation of the proceedings of the appeal before the Land Commissioner, held that the land should be given to the then sitting tenants, respondents 4 to 28 herein. Ho directed the cancellation of the lease in favour of the petitioner holding the same as to be Mogul. According to the Chairman, on the surrender of land by the original lessee Pit Mohi-ud- Din al Badshah, the land reverted to the Government under the old M. L. R. 64 of 1959 end could be utilised thereunder by the Land Commission authorities for allotment to the sitting tenants. The petitioner has come up in writ petition against the last mentioned order of the learned Chairman dated 16th July 1976.
5. As will be evident from the history of the case given above, the question which has arisen in this case is as to whether state land, which was on lease with a land owner and which leased-land was given up by him on the ground that he could not own or possess land more than the permissible ceiling, was available for transfer to sitting tenants of that land in the relevant period under M. L. R.
64 of 1959. It has already been held in Shamir and 83 others v. The Chef Land Commissioner, Lahore and 3 others (1), (where judgment for the D. B. Was written by me), that such a land was not available for transfer to the tenants. Learned counsel for the respondents has tried to pursued me to take a different view pleading that (a) in the aforesaid case para. 177 of the Land Reforms Manual, Volume I was not taken note of and that (b) the State land sale scheme which, according to him, concerned such a land, was not attended to. The contention has no merit. On pages 277- 278 of the precedent case reference has been made to a departmental letter/report dated 4th December 1969, where para. 177 was duly quoted. This letter also refers to the scheme for the sale of state land and jagirs. The position taken up in that letter was not supported at the Bar from the side of the Government as stated in para. 12 on page 278 of the judgment. However, the Bench proceeded to examine the case itself. The case was attended to from various angles and for the reasons contained therein a decision was given as above mentioned. Sale scheme was attended to in particular again on page 285 though the subject was even otherwise covered by the general principles highlighted in the judgment. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties in this case on the same subject, I am further fortified to hold that the view earlier taken in the precedent case, 10 speak with due respect, was quite in order. Reference may be made to para. 13(3) of M. L. R. 115 of 1972 which lays down that "where any person is in possession of land in excess of the area permissible for retention under Part HI so much of such excess land as is in his possession as a lessee or mortgagee shall not vest in Government but shall, subject to other provisions of this Regulation, revert to the lessor or mortgagor, as the case may be". Attention is also invited to para. 18 of M. L. R. 115 of 1972 which deals with "grant of land to tenants". Sub-pars. (4) of that para. States that "nothing in this paragraph Oat; apply to orchards (or to any State land, granted on instalments
(1) PLD 1973 Lah. 264 where any instalment in respect of such land remains unpaid". These pares.
Also support the view already taken on 3rd May 1971 in Shamir and 83 others v. The Chief Land Commissioner, Lahore and 3 others that state land when it is surrendered by a lease-(who has not acquired proprietary rights therein)-is to revert to its owner i,e, lessor and cannot straightaway rest is the Government for resumption of its proprietary rights so long as the lessor is such on whose holdings ceiling limits do not apply. This is an the more so where the lessor is the Government itself.
It is to he noticed that M. L. R. 115 of 1972 was promulgated on 11th March 1972. The Legislature at that time could have changed the law by providing differently in the new Regulation, but instead they confirmed the aforesaid view by enacting para. 13(3) and para. 18(4) as above quoted which were brought on the statute took vide Land Reforms ((Punjab Amendment) Ordinance XV of 1972/Land Reforms (Punjab Amendment) Act XI of 1973,
6. M what has been written above is sufficient to decide this case, the other points raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner need not be referred to.
7. The upshot of the above discussion is that the impugned order passed by the Chairman Federal Land Commission on 16th July 1976 is declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal consequence against the petitioner. In a connected case bearing Writ Petition No, 64 of 1977 titled Muhammad Hanif v. Chairman, Federal Land Commission, Islamabad etc., which was heard along with the present writ petition, I have quashed a similar order of the Chairman, Federal Land Commission, but have also indicated that my order will be no bar in making scrutiny of the case under Martial Law Administrator, Punjab (Zone A) Order No,
14. The same observation will hold good in the instant case as well. Parties to bear their own costs.