P L D (PLP)

2. Briefly the facts of the case or that one Fazal Dad son of Hashim Ali, an Islamabad oustee was allotted 13 acres 4 kanals 2 marlas of land in Chak No. 187/EB, Tehsil Pakpattan vide Collector's order dated 9‑12‑1961. Subsequently it came to A notice that this area was within one mile from railway station Gaggo and according to the standing orders such land could pot be given to Islamabad oustees. The Collector, therefore, served the petitioner with notice for cancelling this land and offered to him alternate land in Chak No. 365/EB. These are given in Collector's orders dated 12‑4‑1971, 12‑8‑1971. The petitioner went in appeal against this order of the Collector before the Additional Commissioner, who vide his order dated 12‑11‑1971 rejected the appeal. The learned counsel for the peti tioner has contended his petition on the following main grounds:‑ (i) According to statement of conditions issued for Islam abad oustees there was no such condition of excluding land within one mile radius of railway station. This condition could not therefore be applied retrospectively. (ii) The petitioner has been in possession of the land for 11 years and has invested some money on it. He could not therefore be dispossessed from the land under section 16. (iii) That ex parte proceedings were taken against the petitioner.

3. As regards grounds No. (i) no statement of conditions had been notified by Government with regard to Islamabad oustees. It was only an administrative decision to allot certain areas to Islamabad oustees on payment of market price. So far as the petitioner is concerned, it is on record in the orders of the Additional Commissioner that he has not paid any amount so far and as such no right has accrued to him. As regards ground No. (ii) it would be seen from the above facts of the case that section 16 of the Colonization of Govern ment Lands Act is not applicable in his case. As regards his claim of investment, the Additional Commissioner 9n his impugned order has already given directions that the collector should have an appraisement on the spot of the investments made by the petitioner and the value of the crops harvested by him. The Collector should go into this aspect and give the petitioner opportunity to establish his claim, if any, for compensation. As regards ground No. (iii), it has no force because petitioner has been heard both by the Collector and the Addi tional Commissioner and hag had ample opportunity to place his objections.

4. It may also be observed that as pointed out by the Additional Commissioner, the petitioner is only a Bai namidar who has apparently purchased the rights of Islamabad oustee.

5. For all the reasons given above and in the orders of the Additional Commissioner dated 12‑11‑1971, I do not see any justification for interfering with the orders of the lower Courts. The petition is therefore rejected. Orders may be issued and parties informed accordingly. Petition rejected.