P L D 1972 Rev (PLP)

This is a revision petition against the order dated 20‑10‑1971 of the Additional Commissioner, Sargodha Division by which he dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner In respect of an Arurl Ahata No. 135 situated in Chak No. 71/NB. Tehsil and District Sargodha.

2. The facts of the case briefly are that the petitioner and respondent applied for allotment of Aruri Ihata No. 135 situated in Chak No. 71/NB. Tehsil and District Sargodha. The Assistant Commissioner/Collector Sargodha vide his order dated 14‑7‑1971 observed that the respondent is in its unauthorised possession and his ejectment is not justifiable. He therefore allotted this Ihata to the respondent on annual rent of Rs. 2 per marls. The petitioner being dissatisfied with this order filed an appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Sargodha Division who agreeing with the order of Collector rejected it on 20‑10‑1971. Hence this revision petition. I have seen the records of the case including the order of the Collector dated 14‑7‑1971, the report of Patwari dated 7‑9‑1971 and order of Khan Anwar Tahmasap Khan, Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), Sargodha Division, Sargodha, dated 20‑10‑1971. I have also heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Muhammad Aslam petitioner himself, whose statement also been recorded. The Collector based his order dated 14‑7‑1971 on the grounds that Talib respondent was in unauthorised occupation of Ihata No. 135 in dispute and that it was not appropriate to dis possess him. In his report dated 7‑9‑1971 the Patwari has stated that according to his enquiry the possession of Muhammad Aslam petitioner from a long time (QABZA-E-DEREENA) was verified and he found also some trees grown by him and construction of Bara for sheep and goats. In his order dated 20‑10‑1971 the Commissioner has made no reference to these contra dictory facts of possession. He has only stated the contentions of the two parties.

5. According to the statement of Muhammad Aslam petitioner recorded before me, he is employed as a clerk in Commerce Bank in Sargodha but keeps his family in Chak No. 71/NB, which is reported to be 2J to 3 miles from Sargodha and is connected by metalled road. He traverses this distance on bicycle every day. According to his statement and two affidavits produced before me. Talib respondent also works in Sargodha and lives there in the Mission School.

6. Both the petitioner Muhammad Aslam and respondent Talib are non‑owners of agricultural land and have nothing to do with the agriculture life of the Chak according to their own statements and findings of the lower Courts. They are interest in securing this Ihata No. 135 in dispute because they want to be with their near relations in this Chak which is so well connected by metalled road and is so near Sargodha town. The Ihata sites in Chaks are primarily meant for use of the agricultural commu nity of the village and are normally allotted on terms and con ditions which are basically concessionary terms, to people who have something to do with the agricultural life of the Chak. In this case it is obvious that neither of the parties are connected A with the agricultural life of the Chak and therefore do not deserve any consideration or preference for allotment. Since there is already dispute about possession and both the parties claim possession it can also be apprehended that if a regular allotment is not made, the site will be occupied unauthorisedly.

7. The case is therefore remanded to the Collector through the Commissioner, who should summon both the parties as well as any others from the agricultural community of the Chak, who may be interested in this Ihata and lease out the site to the person who bids for the highest rent. Lease pro ceedings should be conducted preferably in the village itself.

8. Orders may be issued and parties informed accordingly. Order accordingly