1. ' Since both the cases involve a common matter, hence are disposed of through this single order.
2. Facts of the matter are that 100 Kanals of State land situated in Chak No,386/WB, Tehsil Dunyapur, District Lodhran was leased out to Baboo son of Jabri the predecessor of the petitioners of R.O.R.
3. No,1911 of 1996 in 1960 under the Cooperative Farming Scheme. He was declared ineligible for grant of proprietary rights vide order, dated 26-6-1969 of Colony Assistant/Collector, Multan on grounds of non-cultivation of the land. His appeal in the 'matter having been dismissed by the Commissioner, Multan Division on 8-10-1969, he and some other allottees under the Cooperative Farthing Scheme filed review petitions A which were accepted by the Commissioner, Multan Division vide his order, dated 23-4-1970. Through this order, the Commissioner held them eligible for proprietary rights with the observations that non-existence of entries in their favour in the Khasra Girdawari for some harvests should not deprive them of the proprietary rights. After passing of the said order, while on the one hand, Baboo did not obtain proprietary rights, on the other hand he again failed to cultivate the land himself and the same remained under cultivation of Muhammad Hanif the petitioner of R.O.A. No,30 of 1997. In 1994, Muhammad Yasin etc. Sons of Baboo the petitioners of R.O.R. No,1911 of 1996 made an application to the District Collector, Lodhran for execution of Conveyance Deed in their favour. Muhammad Ayub alias Baboo respondent of both the cases also asserted his claim on the land and opposed the said request. The District Collector having directed his General Assistant (Revenue) to examine the matter, through a report, dated 13-9-1995 he reported that allottee Baboo having appointed Muhammad Hanif as his nominee/heir in respect of the land, the same had remained under cultivation of the latter as a tenant-atwill and that the legal heirs of Baboo could be accommodated by treating the cultivation of Muhammad Hanif as their cultivation. Subsequently, vide a six lines order, dated 27-9-1995, by levying a fine of Rs,3,000 on the legal heirs of Baboo, the District Collector fixed the price of the land as Rs,9,000 and ordered for the execution of Conveyance Deed in their favour and held that respondent Muhammad Ayub had no entitlement on the land. Subsequently, on 8-10-1995, the District Collector executed the Conveyance Deed in favour of the legal heirs of Baboo.
4. ' Respondent Muhammad Ayub filed an appeal against the said order of the District Collector.
5. Therein, he contended that allottee Baboo did not bring the land under cultivation and had left the Chak and therefore, his legal heirs were not entitled for grant of proprietary rights. He also asserted that Baboo had surrendered the land in his favour. Vide his order dated 11-8-1996 the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), Multan Division accepted the appeal and set aside the order of the District Collector with the observations that from Kharif 1970 to Rabi 1992 the land had remained under cultivation of Hanif as a nominee. He also directed for taking up the matter with the Board of Revenue for cancellation of the Conveyance Deed in question on grounds of the same having been obtained by misrepresentation and concealment of facts. This order of the Additional Commissioner has been assailed through the present revision petition and the appeal.
6. ' Written arguments having been filed by the parties, in those filed by Rana Muhammad Tanveer Ahmad Khan, Advocate the learned counsel for Muhammad Yasin etc. The petitioners of R.O.R.
7. No,1911 of 1996 and respondents in the other case, mainly the following assertions were made:--
(1) That, through the order dated 23-4-1970, the Commissioner, Multan Division had declared allottee Baboo eligible for grant of proprietary rights. That, no appeal or revision petition had been filed against this order and hence it had attained finality.
(2) That, petitioners Muhammad Yasin etc. Having made an application to the District Collector for grant of proprietary rights after obtaining report from his staff vide his order, dated 27-9-1995, he allowed the request with a penalty of Rs,3,000 and turned down the claim of the respondent Muhammad Ayub on the land.
(3) That, the Conveyance Deed having been executed in favour of the said petitioners, the appeal of respondent Muhammad Ayub was accepted by the Additional Commissioner against law. That, the Additional Commissioner was not competent to move for cancellation of the Conveyance Deed in question.
(4) That, after the death of their predecessor Baboo, petitioners Yamin and Yasin had been enlisted as members of the Chak Cooperative Society on 21-9-1994. That, on the other hand, respondent Muhammad Ayub fraudulently showed himself as member of the Cooperative Society and his claim on the land had no footing.
(5) That, Hanif was appointed as nominee in respect of the land with the permission of the Cooperative Farming Society and that the cultivation of a person residing with the allottee was to be treated as self-cultivation.
(6) That, respondent Muhammad Ayub was not a resident of the Chak and belonged to another district i.e, Multan.
8. ' With the above assertions, it was pleaded that the impugned order of the Additional Commissioner may be set aside and the Conveyance Deed executed in favour of Muhammad Yamin etc. Should be upheld.
9. ' In the written arguments filed by Mr. Kanwar Nisar, Advocate on behalf of respondent Muhammad Ayub, it was mainly contended as under:--
(1) That, allottee Baboo failed to fulfil the conditions of lease and left residence from the Chak. And, therefore, he was declared ineligible for grant of proprietary rights by the District Collector in 1970.
(2) That, through statements made in various civil suits, allottee Baboo had surrendered his right on the land in favour of the respondent Muhammad Ayub and Muhammad Hanif and subsequently through an Agreement of Sale dated 15-12-1980 Muhammad Hanif appellant of R.O.A.
10. No,30 of 1997 had sold the rights of the land to respondent Muhammad Ayub. That, thus, the respondent had a lawful title on the land and was entitled for grant of its proprietary rights.
(3) That, Yasin and Yamin sons of allottee Baboo had neither remained members of the Chak Cooperative Farming Society nor they were residents of the Chak nor they had remained in self- cultivation of the land.
(4) That, the respondent had been made a member of the Chak Cooperative Farming Society on 14-12-1994.
(6) That, the Conveyance Deed in question being unlawful and based on misrepresentation of facts, the same may be cancelled and the revision petition and the appeal may be dismissed.
11. ' In the written arguments filed by Mian Mushtaq Ahmed, Advocate on behalf of Muhammad Hanif appellant of R.O.A. No,30 of 1997, it has been contended as under:--
(1) That, ever since its allotment, the land in question had remained under cultivation of appellant Muhammad Hanif and allottee Baboo had permanently left his residence from the Chak and through a written agreement dated 25-1-1968 had transferred his rights in the land to the appellant.
(2) That, the appellant having applied for allotment of the land and for enrolment as a member of the Chak Cooperative Farming Society, the Society had enlisted him as a member on 10-7-1976 and had allotted the land to him.
(3) That, the land being under his cultivating possession, respondent Muhammad Ayub made an application for correction of the Khasra Girdawari entries for Kharif 1994 and Rabi 1995 in his favour.
12. That, the District Collector visited the Chak for necessary verification and vide his order, dated 22- 11-1995 dismissed the said application and observed that the disputed land was in cultivating possession of the appellant since the last many decades.
(4) That, the application made by Muhammad Hanif to implead him as a party in the appeal was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner without any justification.
(5) That, the entry in the record of the Chak Cooperative Society about the appellant being a nominee of Baboo is untenable as during his life-time Baboo had surrendered all his rights in the disputed land in his favour against a consideration.
(6) That, the appellant having remained in cultivating possession of the land ever since its allotment and during the crucial harvests of the three years prior to 1961 and having fulfilled all the conditions, he is entitled for proprietary rights of the land.
(7) That, the Conveyance Deed in question issued in favour of Muhammad Yamin and Muhammad Yasin may be cancelled.
13. ' I have given due consideration to the respective contention of the parties and have examined the relevant record. Allottee Baboo was declared ineligible for proprietary rights by the Collector, Multan in 1969 on grounds of his non-cultivation of the land. On the review petitions of Baboo and some other allottees, vide his order, dated 23-4-1970 the Commissioner, Multan Division did an out of way favour to them by holding that in spite of there being no entries about their cultivation of the lands, they may be granted proprietary rights. While on the one hand this order of the Commissioner had no sanction of any law/policy behind it, on the other hand it created no permanent right in favour of the allottees for grant of proprietary rights. At best the allottees could benefit from this order in the same year or at the most during the next one or two years. However, allottee Baboo did not obtain proprietary rights in pursuance of this order at the appropriate time.
14. On the other hand, he did not enter into self-cultivation of the land and provenly left the Chak and handed over the land to Muhammad Hanif appellant of R.O.A. No,30 of 1997 and executed a Deed in his favour in this regard. During the next many decades the land remained under cultivation of Muhammad Hanif and this position was reflected in the Khasra Girdawari record. Possession of the land having never been taken back by Baboo, he subsequently died. Thus, for obvious reasons, no right of Baboo subsisted on the land and the order, dated 23-4-1970 of the Commissioner, Multan Division had lost its validity and had automatically became infructuous.
15. ' Cultivating possession of Muhammad Hanif having been shown in the Revenue Record, the Chak Cooperative Farming Society enlisted him as member in 1976. Subsequently, in the record of the Chak Cooperative Society entries in respect of the disputed land were recorded in his favour. Thus, practically the land was deserted by allottee Baboo who left the Chak and never asserted his claim on the land before any authority till his death. The fact of his having forsaken his claim on the land is also established from the statements given by him in the various civil suits as contended by respondent Muhammad Ayub in his written arguments with proper facts and figures.
16. ' In view of the above discussed position, under the law, on no account, Baboo or his legal heirs were entitled for grant of proprietary rights of the land. On the other hand, in order to grab the land, Yasin and Yamin sons of Baboo manoeuvered the membership of the Chak Cooperative Society in 1994 and on its basis made application to the District Collector for grant of proprietary rights. Their request having absolutely no validity under the prescribed policy and law, through his report dated 13-9-1995, the General Assistant (Revenue) supported their request with the ridiculous recommendations that the cultivation of land (for decades) by Muhammad Hanif should be treated as the cultivation of allottee Baboo and his legal heirs. Surprisingly, while making no mention of this report as well, without giving any reasons at all for his decision, vide his order, dated 27-9-1995 which consisted of just six lines, the District Collector unlawfully allowed the execution of the Conveyance Deed in favour of the legal heirs of Baboo. Surprisingly, through this order the District Collector imposed a penalty of Rs,3,000 on the said legal heirs for non-cultivation of the land and without obtaining any report from the concerned staff arbitrarily fixed the price of the land as Rs,9,000. Self-cultivation of the lands being a basic condition for grant of proprietary rights under the Cooperative Farming Scheme, on all accounts, the said order of the District Collector was an unlawful and void order. The contents of this order and the multiple cuttings therein also speak for themselves. It is too obvious that some ulterior motives on the part of the District Collector were involved behind the passing of this unlawful order in utter. Violation of rules/policy. Thus, an all accounts, the Conveyance Deed issued in favour of Yasin etc. The sons of Baboo by he District Collector was based on misrepresentation of facts, illegality and fraud. In these circumstances, through his impugned order, the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), Multan Division had rightly set aside the order, dated 27-9-1995 of the District Collector, Lodhran and had rightly directed to move for cancellation of the Conveyance Deed in question.
17. ' For the foregoing reasons, Revision Petition No,1911 of 1996 filed by Muhammad Yasin etc. Has no merits. The same is accordingly dismissed. The Conveyance Deed issued in their favour being based on illegality and fraud, the same is accordingly cancelled under section 30(2) of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912.
18. The impugned order having been passed on the appeal of respondent Muhammad Ayub, the learned Additional Commissioner failed to give any findings with regard to his claim on the land. A6 for the claim of Muhammad Hanif appellant of R.O.A. No,30 of 1997, the same also requires to be properly examined. Therefore, while upholding the impugned order of the Additional Commissioner to the extent of setting aside the said order of the District Collector, Lodhran R.O.A. No,30 of 1997 is disposed of by referring the matter to the District Officer (Revenue), Lodhran for determination of the issue as to whether any of the two i.e, appellant Muhammad Hanif and respondent Muhammad Ayub is entitled for proprietary rights of the land in question vis-a-vis the terms and conditions prescribed under the Cooperative Farming Scheme. For this purpose, the District Officer (Revenue) will hear them, examine their respective claims on merits and take a decision in accordance with law/policy.
19. ' A copy of this order be sent to the District Officer (Revenue), Lodhran for necessary action.