P L D 1959 W (PLP)

Building site allotted and sale deed registered

Allotment cannot be reversed. Abdur Rahim and Ghulam Ali Alvi for Petitioner. Abdul Haleem for Respondent. I find it necessary to modify the order which Mr. Nasir Ahmad, Financial Commissioner, Punjab, passed on 4‑4‑55 in favour of the present respondent. By the said order, he refused to accept the request which had been made by the present petitioners in respect of a building site in Chak No. 27/4‑L, Tahsil Okara. This building site had been allotted to the present petitioners by the Collector, but the Commissioner had accepted the appeal of the present respondent on the ground that the site had been previously allotted to him and should be re‑allotted to him. The Commissioner, however, overlooked the point that the Collector had, after allotting the site to the petitioners, executed a regular sale‑deed in their favour on 29‑9‑53 and that the sale‑deed had been duly registered in their favour on 1‑10‑

53. The Com missioner's appellate order passed in favour of the present respon dent is dated 25‑5‑54 and determined the Revenue appeal bearing No. 216 of 1953‑54.1 have little hesitation in holding that the appeal was instituted before the Commissioner after the date on which the petitioners had received the sale‑deed referred to above. When a building site in a village Abadi has been sold irrevo cably by a Collector in favour of one party, no interference is possible in respect of the desire of any other party for obtaining the allotment of that site. I, therefore, accept this petition for review and direct that the allotment of the site in question in favour of the present petitioners should remain intact. I have passed the above order in the absence of the records of the Commissioner and the Collector which have not become available in spite of strenuous efforts covering many months. The respondent has to‑day put in written statements which have been placed on the file. The respondent tends to argue that the original allotment which had been made in his favour in 1914 was never cancelled and that consequently the question of allotting the site to the petitioners in 1953 did not arise On this point, I need not refer to the records of the subordinate officers, because there is clear evidence that an order cancelling the allotment of the present respondent was passed in 1945. It cannot, therefore, be said that B a fresh allotment order could not be passed or that a sale‑deed could not be executed in favour of the present petitioners in 1953. K. M. A. Petition accepted.