MUHAMMAD SHAFI AND ANOTHER Versus AMIR AHMAD AND 3 OTHERS
ORDER
This is a revision petition against the order dated 3‑6‑1971 of the Additional Commissioner, Bahawalpur Division by which he rejected the appeal of the petitioners regarding allotment of Ihata No. 38 situated in Chak No. 285/HR Tehsil Fort Abbas, district Bahawalnagar.
2. The facts of the case briefly are that the disputed Ihata was allotted to the petitioner on 1‑3‑1955. Subsequently on 16‑5‑1960 the Ihatas Nos. 38 and 41 were given to the respondents according to the recommendations of the local officers keeping in view the agricultural land owned by the respondents. The respondents thereupon made an application to the Deputy Commissioner, Bahawalnagar for the cancellation of the allotment of said Ihata from the names of the petitioners, but the same was filed on 10‑9‑1962 as both the parties were absent. The respondents made another application for ejectment of the petitioners to the Collector and the Collector vide his order dated 16‑3‑1971 held that the petitioners should remain in possession of the disputed Ihata temporarily and instead allotted Ahata No. 35 to the respondents. The respondents on 25‑3‑1971 made a third application and the Collector vide his order dated 20‑4‑1971 reviewed the earlier order and made the allotment to the respon dents. It was also directed that the petitioners should vacate the Ihata immediately.
3. The petitioners filed an appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Bahawalpur against the order dated 16‑5‑1960 who held the appeal as time‑barred and rejected it on 15‑3‑1971. Subsequently the petitioners filed an appeal against the order dated 20‑4‑1971 passed by the Collector, Bahawalnagar which was rejected by the Additional Commissioner on 3‑6‑1971.
4. I have heard the counsels of the two sides. The contention of the petitioners that they were summoned for 7‑6‑1971 but the appeal was decided on 3‑6‑1971 carries no weight as both the parties were present on 3‑6‑1971 when the case was heard. The date of 7‑6‑1971 could be a writing error.
5. I understand during the arguments that the petitioners have purchased land in auction in Chak No. 288/HR, Tehsil Fort Abbas and have also purchased land from private parties in Chak No. 284/HR Tehsil Fort Abbas. They however, live In Chak No. 285/HR as no Ihata has been allotted to them in Chak No. 288/HR and 284/HR. As shown in comments dated 12‑1Q‑1971 offered by the Collector the petitioners are also unauthorised occupants of Ihata No. 49 in Chak No. 284/HR which is reserved for Patwarkhana. The respondents are in possession of Ihata in dispute from 12‑6‑1971. They own 11 squares of land in joint Khata in Chak No. 285/HR and have acquired proprietary rights over it, with a registered deed. Ihata in dispute was originally allotted to the respondents in 1960 according to their entitlement. Ihata No. 35 was also not available for allotment as it has already been allotted to one Munir who has one square of land in this Chak. A Fard Taqseem of Ihata in Chak No. 285/HR shows that 3 Ihatas are in unauthorised occupation, and would be available for allotment.
6. I have given careful thought to the facts of the case and in the circumstances stated above uphold order of the Additional Commissioner regarding the allotment of Ihata in dispute to the respondents. Another Ihata should be allotted to the petitioners in Chak No. 284/HR or in Chak No. 288/HR where they own land. If no Ihata is found available in the above Chaks, the petitioners may be given an Ihata in Cha No. 285/HR.
Order accordingly.