NAWAB KHAN &ND OTHERS Versus MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH AND ANOTHER

ORDER

1. This is a revision petition against the order dated 17‑8‑1971 of the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Multan by which he rejected the appeal of the petitioners with regard to Khasra Nos. 74/11, 12, 13, 20, 21, 24 and 51/22‑23 situated in Chak No. 169/10‑R Tehsil Khanewal district Multan.

2. The facts are that lot No. 3 was allotted to the respondents under the well sinking scheme in 1959. The possession of Khasra Nos. in dispute could not be delivered to the respondents as the petitioners were occupying a portion of this land as abadi, there was a water pond and some of area was being used as a graveyard. It was also stated that during the flood of 1950, the petitioners had constructed their houses in the disputed place as it was situated at a higher level. The Assistant Commissioner however vide his order dated 5‑7‑1971 held that the petitioners were encroachers and that they should be ejected, leaving Khasra No. 74/26 which should be regularized as an abadi and Khasra Nos. 51/22, 23 as a graveyard, Hence this revision petition.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the petitioners and respondents themselves and seen the records of the case. It is the contention of the petitioners that the abadi had been in existence since 1950 and that the Patwari's report about the subsequent construction of the abadi is wrong. They contend that it was during floods of 1950 that they shifted to these killas which are apparently at a high level compared to other area in the revenue estate and that their settling down on this area for the village abadi was virtually approved by the local officers. In support of their contention they refer to the application of Nawab Khan Lambardar dated 4‑2‑1961, wherein he had stated that some killas in square No. 74 were already being used as abadi and that this area should be excluded from allotment on Tube well Sinking conditions. The Patwari in his report dated 12‑2‑1961 suggested exclusion of sixty kanals from squares Nos. 74, 51 for the village abadi and graveyard and in its place he suggested inclusion of 60 kanals 14 marlas from square No. 72. Again the Patwari reported on 24‑2‑1961 that the abadi had already been constructed because of floods. The Kanungo endorsed the report of the Patwari on 24.2‑1961 and recorded that the abadi had been permitted by the officers who had visited the chak. The Tahsildar vide his report dated 27‑2‑1961 proposed the exclusion of the area. Again vide his report dated 6‑3‑1961, the Patwari suggested exclusion of square No. 74 Killa Nos. 11, 12, 13, 14 west 17 west, 20, 21 and 24 west total 52 kanals for abadi and square No. 51, Killas Nos. 22 and 23 total 8 kanals for graveyard. In his application through Sultan Ahmad his son/Attorney Mohammad Abdullah respondent applied on 15‑8‑1961 requesting that only six kanals may be excluded from his lot and the rest of the area may not be exclu ded. All this goes to show that the abadi had been in existence in some form or the other since February 1961. It is also obvious that the villagers have been expanding their occupation in this area from time to time and what may have been only a small nucleons of an abadi has extended to cover nearly sixty kanals. The hope of the villagers of this Chak to get this Abadi approved seems to have been encouraged by the precedent of another abadi in Chak No. 142/10‑R Tehsil Khanewal which was reportedly set up in similar circumstances in 1950 and which has been regulari zed by the Collector in 1966. It is obvious that it would be diffi cult to shift all these people since apparently this is the only high area in the estate suitable for an abadi. It would, therefore be best to regularize the existence of the abadi and sanction the above area of 60 kanals for the village abadi etc.

4. The next question to be dealt with is how to compen sate the tube well allottees for the loss of this area. It is repor ted by the field Patwari who has been present during the hearing that some land in square No. 72 is at present on 10 years lease with Manzoor Ahmad son of Chiragh Ali, with effect from Kharif 1969. This square is adjoining to the tube well lot of the respon dents and they can be compensated by allotment of the following area in lieu of the area deducted from their lot for the village abadi etc.

2. Square No. Killa No. Area

3. 72 1 7‑7

4. 2 West 3‑13

5. 9 West 4‑00

6. 10 8‑00

7. 11 8‑00

8. 12 West 4‑00

9. 19 West 4‑00

10. 20 8‑00

11. 2 1 8‑00

12. 22 West 6‑00

13. _____________

14. Total Area 61‑00

15. _____________

16. The area in square No. 72 is reported by the Patwari to be mostly Banjar and only in Kharif 1970 the lessee had grown some khar which is a product of Banjar land without much effort. In lieu of the area to be surrendered by Manzoor Ahmad lessee the Patwari has suggested allotment of 61 kanals 4 marlas from square No. 17 noted below :‑

17. Square No. Killa No. Area

18. 17 1 8‑00

19. 2 8‑00

20. 3 7‑16

21. 8 5‑8

22. 9 8‑00

23. 10 8‑00

24. 11 8‑00

25. 12 8‑00

26. The Patwari has also reported that the remaining area in square No. 17 is proprietary land of the father of Manzoor Ahmad lessee. If Manzoor Ahmad is shifted from part of Square No. 72 to part of Square No. 17 he will be getting near his father's land. This proposal of compensating Mohammad Abdullah etc. respondents by allotment of part of Square No. 72 and compensating Manzoor Ahmad lessee by allotment of part of Square No. 17 should be examined by the D. C. Collector after verification by the field staff at the spot.

5. Mohammad Abdullah respondent has also complained that he has been required to pay rent for the area in dispute which has not been in his possession. In view of the fact that the res pondents have not enjoyed possession of the area in dispute, the rent for it should be deducted and adjusted against payments for area already in their possession and from the harvest they are given an equivalent area in lieu of the area in dispute they may be required to pay the usual rent.

6. The revision petition is therefore decided as above. Orders may be issued and parties may be informed accordingly.

27. Order accordingly.