' These ten revision petitions have been filed by the Deputy Commissioner/ Collector, Sabiwal, against various orders of the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Multan by which he accepted the appeals of the respondents and restored the land allotted to them under Well Sinking Scheme.
The validity and propriety of these orders have been challenged, inter alia on the grounds (a) that allotment of area more than 25 acres was against the provisions of the Scheme, (b) that commanded and already cultivated area could not be allotted, and (c) that allottees had failed to bring 50% area under cultivation within first five years.
2. I have heard the parties at length. The State Representative informs that the land allotted to Amir respondent already stands resumed and therefore the revision against bim may be dismissed as being infructuous. Similarly the revision petition against . Muhammad Mahfooz respondent has also been withdrawn. Both these revisions are accordingly dismissed.
3. As for the remaining eight revisions, it has been urged that allotments have been made according to the Schedules approved by the Board of Revenue and, therefore, the Collector was not competent to resume the excess areas after a lapse of more than three years in view of proviso to section 16 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912. The argument has been founded on Board of Revenue decision reported as Muhammad Zaman Khan v. State and is unexceptionable.
Consequently, all the revision petitions fail and are therefore rejected.