Brief facts in the instant civil revision are that the petitioner was a temporary lessee under the Temporary Cultivating Scheme of 3-9-1979 as a landless tenant in Square No,29, Khatas Nos.1 to 12 land measuring 99 Kanals and 1 Marla situated in Chak No,622/G.B. Tehsil Samundari District, Faisalabad. He was allotted land as a lessee and applied for proprietary rights under the Scheme of 1979. His proprietary rights were refused on 26-12-1983 on the ground that he was not a continuous cultivator of the disputed property from Rabi, 1977. In the meantime another Scheme of 28-9-1983 came where target date for cultivation was Rabi, 1980. As the earlier application was decided on 26-12-1983 the lessee could not apply for proprietary rights under the Scheme of 1983 and when he gave an application it was observed that it is given after a delay of long time, which cannot be condoned. He filed a revision petition before the Board of Revenue, which too was dismissed with the observation that both the Scheme of 1979 and 1983 were different as the target date for determination of tenancy was Rabi, 1977 under the Scheme of 1979 and Rabi, 1980 under the Scheme of 1983. Although it was admitted that as the earlier application was decided on 26-12- 1983 but a man with ordinary prudence could apply under this scheme as well and dismissed the petition. The petitioner filed a civil suit challenging the judgments and decrees passed by the Revenue Courts, which too was dismissed and on appeal the judgment and decree of the leaned trial Court was confirmed.
2. During arguments learned A.A.-G. Appearing and representing the Province of Punjab admitted that the petitioner is in continuous cultivating possession of the lot in dispute; that the proprietary rights were refused to him as he was not in cultivating possession of the lot in dispute in Rabi, 1977; that the learned Additional Commissioner Revenue, Faisalabad Division, Faisalabad vide his order, dated 18-7-1984 in another case of Gul Muhammad lessee granted the request to apply again to the District Collector under the Scheme of 1983 which he could not apply earlier. Learned counsel for the petitioner agrees.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned A.A.-G. From the perusal of file it is clear that in the evidence the order, dated 16-10-1985 passed by the Colony Assistant is present where he has held the petitioner eligible for the grant of proprietary rights. It is also proved on record that the present petitioner being lessee was continuously in possession of the lot in question as the lease was extended from time to time. It is also established on record that he has developed the lot in question while spending a huge money, he installed a tubewell and his eligibility for the proprietary rights under the Scheme of 1983 is according to the terms and conditions of the Scheme of 1983. Under the provisions of Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 the allotment is subject to the terms and conditions of the Scheme under which the allottee is allotted the lot and the Revenue Courts have complete hierarchy in this matter than the Civil Courts. It is also established on record that the Revenue Courts have not looked into this aspect that it was not fault of the petitioner to file an application for conferment of proprietary rights in time as he was waiting the decision in his earlier application under the scheme of 3-9- 1979 unless and until that was decided he could not apply under the Second Scheme, therefore, this Court is not in consonance with the judgment of the Additional Commissioner as well as Member, Board of Revenue. The lot is still available for allotment and the lessee fulfills all the obligations of the terms and conditions of the conferment of proprietary rights. As P.W. He has stated that he has installed a tubewell on the disputed lot, then it is inequitable to deprive him from his right of conferment of proprietary rights, therefore, I accept the instant civil revision and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court, dated 3-11-1991 and that of the learned Appellate Court, dated 9-10-1995 and also that of the orders, dated 18-7-1984, 14-5-1986 and 7-8-1986 passed by the Revenue Courts and direct the allottee to move to the District Officer, Revenue within the purview of earlier order of the Deputy Commissioner/Collector, Faisalabad, dated 5-2-1986 Exh.P.6, who shall hear him and decide the matter afresh.