GHULAM SARWAR KHAN Versus GHULAM NABI
ORDER
This is a revision against the orders of Commissioner, Faisalabad dated 26‑5‑1986, whereby he rejected the applications of the petitioner for the review of orders dated 19‑11‑1984 and 9‑9‑1985, passed by his predecessor, who had dismissed the appeal of the petitioner against the order of C. A . /Collector, dated 20‑4‑1983. The C . A . /Collector had allotted Sqr. Nos.29/2, 3, 4 min 8 to 12, 13/1, 19/I, situated in Chak No.445/GB to the respondent as alternate land under Ejected Tenants Scheme.
2. Facts of the case are that Ghulam Nabi was an allottee of 74K‑6M of land in Chak No.449‑GB under Ejected Tenants Scheme. The land being situated within the prohibited zone was resumed under instructions of the Government and Ghulam Nabi respondent applied for allotment of alternate land. The C.A./Collector vide order dated 4‑8‑1980 declared him eligible to obtain alternate allotment of 64 Kanals, whereafter Ghulam Nabi filed an application for the disputed land, and the C.A./Collector on 20‑4‑1983 allotted him the land. Ghulam Sarwar petitioner appealed to the Commissioner on the ground that he had also filed the Fard alongwith application on 21‑3‑1983 whereas the petitioner had filed his copy on 6‑4‑1983 consequently the land was to be allotted to him. The Commissioner after hearing the arguments rejected the appeal on 19‑11‑1984. The petitioner then filed a review application, but this was also rejected on 9‑5‑1985 by the same Commissioner. The petitioner then filed a second application for review but it was also turned down. Hence this revision petition.
3. I have heard the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that father of the petitioner was allottee in Chak No.445/GB under Ejected Tenants Scheme. The allotted area being within the prohibited zone the Collector had held him entitled for alternate allotment and the petitioner applied for allotment of Sqr. Nos.29/1 to 4, 4/1, 6 to 10, 12, 13/1, 19/1 measuring 80K 19M. Ghulam Nabi and Abdul Latif also applied for alternate allotment of the same land. He argued that he had a preferential right because respondent was previously allotted land in Chak No.449/GB,and had applied for alternate allotment in Chak No.445/GB, while the petitioner Ghulam Sarwar had his previous allotment in the same chak i.e. 445/GB,and therefore should have been preferred for the alternate allotment. It was alleged that all the three applications mentioned above were pending before the C.A/Collector and fixed for hearing for 20‑4‑1983 when those of the petitioner for Abdul Latif were adjourned to 16‑5‑1983 on the ground that Patwari was not available, but that of Ghulam Nabi was decided separately on 20‑4‑1983 recording the presence of the Patwari. He claimed that actually on 16‑5‑1983 the petitioner was directed to produce another Fard of land as disputed land was within the prohibited zone and not available for allotment and in the meantime the land was allotted to Ghulam Nabi. Consequently the appellate Court failed to appreciate that C. A . /Collector has treated the same land to be within prohibited zone as far as the petitioner was concerned and then allotted it to the respondent treating it to be outside the prohibited zone. The Commissioner had therefore also not acted judicially in rejecting the appeal as well as applications of review filed by the petitioners. It was further pointed out that Ghulam Nabi had died on 18‑12‑1978, but had been marked as present by the Collector in his proceedings from 1981 till 1983. He further alleged that the original application of Ghulam Nabi for alternate allotment was for Chak No.557/GB and he had never obtained 'Fard' of the disputed land in his name and had applied later than petitioner, whose case was being considered for alternate allotment being the allottee of the Chak.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent contended that he had plied for the allotment of the disputed land and it made no difference the Fard attached with the application had been obtained by some one else. Actually the petitioner had attached a bogus Fard. He argued that entitlement of the respondent was accepted and land was rightly allotted to him by the C. A . The appeal of the petitioner had been rightly rejected, and his two applications for review were also turned down. Legally he could not now come in revision. (P L D 1976 SC 159). He claimed that he was in possession of the disputed land and had a legal right to continue.
5. The colony clerk stated that Mohammad Akram Mukhtar‑e‑Khas of Ghulam Nabi had applied for alternate allotment in Chak No.396/GB and it had been allotted to him by the C. A . /Collector on 29‑9‑1980. Litigation started and then Mohammad Ibrahim son of Ghulam Nabi on 21‑3‑1983 applied for alternate allotment in Chak No.445/GB stating that previously he had applied for allotment in Chak No.557/GB, but no allotment had been made. He stated that no Fard of land of Chak No.445/GB was attached with this application, however a Fard of the disputed area was available at page 97‑98 of the office file which was obtained by Mohammad Sabir son of Noor Din on 19‑3‑1983. He stated that in the case of Ghulam Nabi the Patwari was not present on 2‑3‑1983 and was called for 4‑4‑1983. However there was no order dated 4‑4‑1983 which would indicate the adjournment of the case to 20‑4‑1983 when the impugned order was allegedly passed. The only evidence is at the bottom of the order sheet in the shape of an interim order dated 20‑4‑1983, without stamp that (Bahawala hokum amroze alignment ki jati hai).He stated that Sardar Khan father of Ghulam Sarwar petitioner was an allottee under Ejected Tenants Scheme of Chak No.445/GB, and after his death Ghulam Sarwar had been perusing the case for alternate allotment. His father had applied for Proprietary Rights of the land already with him under Ejected Tenants Scheme in the same Chak,and had deposited the rent, while Ghulam Sarwar on 6‑4‑1983 had attached the Fard Arazi of the disputed land which he had obtained from the Patwari on 5‑4‑1983. He stated that he was declared eligible to obtain alternate allotment measuring 44K‑15M on 4‑4‑1983 and case was adjourned to 20‑4‑1983 for the production of Fard Arazi for alternate allotment. On 20‑4‑1983 the case was adjourned to 16‑5‑1983 as the Patwari was not present and on 16‑5‑1983 it was recorded in the interim order (unsigned by the Presiding Officer) that the area was partly within the prohibited zone and that the petitioner should produce Fard of some other land for the alternate allotment.
6. I have considered the arguments and perused the record of the case. Predecessor of Ghulam Sarwar petitioner held the allotment under Ejected Tenants Scheme in Chak No.445/G.B., but could not get its proprietary rights as it was within the prohibited zone. He was declared eligible on 4‑4‑1983 to obtain alternate allotment. Obviously as allottee of the Chak he had a better right to obtain alternate allotment in the same Chak as compared to an outsider. The petitioner had appended Fard Arazi on 6‑4‑1983 which he had obtained personally from the Patwari, whereas the Fard Arazi appended on A the file of Ghulam Nabi, although dated 19‑3‑1983 had been issued by the Patwari in favour of one Mohammad Sabir (who wanted to purchase the land), and not in favour of the respondent. The detailed order allotting alternate land to Ghulam Nabi by the Colony Assistant is dated 20‑4‑1983, wherein the presence of the Patwari of Chak No.445/GB, is mentioned, but on the other hand the same officer adjourned the case of alternate allotment of the same land to Ghulam Sarwar on the same date to 16‑5‑1983 on the ground that the Patwari was not present. The C.A/Collector apparently was biased in favour of the respondent. It is also interesting to note that the C.A./Collector in his impugned order dated 20‑4‑1983 directed Ghulam Nabi to deposit Lagan before obtaining possession of the land. However, Mohammad Ibrahim son of Ghulam Nabi, applied only on 24‑1‑1984 for the issue of warrant dakhil which was issued to him on 8‑2‑1984 when he deposited the rent. Such late deposit and possession for land for which there was such keen litigation also lends support to the impression that the order dated 20‑4‑1983 in favour of respondent was not an order passed after judicial exercise of his judgment by the C.A./Collector. It is therefore hereby set aside and the allotment to respondent of the impugned land rescinded. The District Collector will now himself deal with the requests of the parties for alternate land and pass fresh orders after first satisfying himself about the eligibility of both and their respective merits. The petition is disposed of accordingly.
A.A./277/R Case remanded.