Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
1988 M L D 1746
1988 M L D 1746
[Punjab]
Before Asad Ali Shah, Vember (Colonies), Board of Revenue
BALANDA and others‑‑Petitioner
versus
NAWAB and others‑‑Respondents
R:O.R. No. 1846 of 1986, decided on 14th April, 19M.
Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912)---‑
‑‑‑S. 10‑‑West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967), S. 164‑‑Revisional jurisdiction‑‑Allotment of Ihata by Collector on basis of unauthorized possession‑‑Allotment confirmed in appeal ‑Revision against‑‑Possession of respondent being the main factor case was remanded to Collector with direction to personally visit the spot and if possession of respondent on Ihata was proved to be before 198:7, he should be given that Ihata on rent, otherwise he being a mueen should be given some other Iliata in the mueen category if eligible, and impugned 1hata be allotted to petitioners subject to their eligibility.
Malik Talib Hussain Awan for Petitioners.
Ch. Mazahar Hussain for Respondents.
Date of hearing; 14th April, 1988.
ORDER
This is a revision petition against tile order of Additional Commissioner (Revenue & Cons.), Lahore dated 23‑4‑1986) whereby he upheld the 'order of A.C./ Collector 0kara dated 30‑12‑1986 allotting Ihata No. 344 measuring 9 Marlas 3 Sarsahis in Chak No. 14/ 1‑AL Tehsil and district Okara to the respondent on basis of his unauthorized possession.
2. I have heard the parties through their respective counsels and seen tile record. Briefly the position is that the respondent applied to A.C./Collector for allotment of the impugned Thata claiming his unauthorized possession. The A.C./Collector accepted the request and ordered sale of impugned 1hata to him with 50% of the price as penalty plus 10% surcharge. The petitioners appealed to the Additional Commissioner (Revenue & Cons.), Lahore claiming that although they were three brothers they had beer. granted only part of Ihata No. 338 while the respondent had been given the full Ihata. The Additional Commissioner observed that in another case (Mohabbat Ali v. Balanda) the petitioner had stated before that Court that he was satisfied with the allotment of Ihata No. 338 and, therefore, had no case to claim allotment of impugned Ihata specially when he conceded that it was occupied by the respondent. He, therefore, rejected the appeal. 1‑fence this petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the disputed Ihata was Abadkari Ihata whereas the respondent was a `Machi' by caste, and was being unduly favoured by the local administration. Since the main factor is possession of the respondent, the case is remanded to the D.C./Collector who may personally ,A visit the site and if it is proved to his satisfaction that possession of the respondent on the Ihata was before 1983, he should be given the Ihata on rent, but if it is proved that he took over possession recently he should be given some other Ihata in the mueens category if eligible, and the impugned Thata be allotted to Balanda etc. petitioners subject to their eligibility. The petition is disposed of accordingly.
A.A./287/R Order accordingly.