P L D 1961 W P (Rev (PLP)

Revision No. 230 of 1958‑59, decided on 25th November 1959, District Multan. Allotment‑Reclamation conditions‑Square allotted to two persons‑Area shown in record of Government six acres, while field in fact was more than 18 acres‑Mistake coming to light after 8 years, when allottees had reclaimed whole land‑Held, that allottees be allowed to continue in possession of land This is a revision petition against the order of the Additional Commissioner, Multan, dated 12‑3‑1959, in respect of State land allotted to the petitioners in two successive lots Nos. 9‑A and 9‑B on reclamation conditions published to Notification No. 4545‑C dated 12‑12‑1945.

2. The Collector reduced their area by 12 acres 2 kanals and 9 marlas as an excess allotted to the petitioners; but he did not record a proper order and the error in calculations was not precisely brought home to the petitioners. The Additional Commissioner in appeal was also misled and dismissed the appeal on the ground that "jointly or individually nobody is to be given more than 25 acres of land". There is no warrant for this assumption, under Government order No. 1101‑C, dated 23‑3‑1950, the unit of allotment both in the Haveli and Nili Bar Colonies can be between "1 to 2 rectangles." There is, therefore, no justification for restricting the unit of allotment to 25 acres. But the mistake really occurred in the calculations, because square No. 60 was shown to be 6 acres whereas its real area is 18 acres 6 kanals and 1 marla; and this is precisely the area that was given to the petitioners. The Collector ordered the deduction of 12 acres 2 kanals and 9 marlas from their total area. I do not see why the petitioners should be penalized for a mistake on our record, for which they were not responsible and on which they have been acting for the last 8 years. It has been noticed by the additional Commissioner that the excess area has also been reclaimed by them; there is in any case, no complaint whatsoever for any breach of con ditions. The Government instructions also permit the maximum unit of allotment up to 50 acres. The total area occupied by the petitioners comes to 52 acres, 6 kanals and 14 marlas comprising the two lots, which means that there is an excess of only 2 acres, 6 kanals, and 3 marlas. In view of the fact that the petitioners have invested money and labors in reclaim ing this whole area over a period of 8 years, it would appear to be inequitable to deprive them of this small fraction of 2 acres, 6 kanals and 3 marlas. Moreover, if this small fraction is deducted, the whole lot may be disturbed. However, it is clear that the areas of the two lots have to be checked up again and a fresh decision recorded in the light of the observations made above. I would, therefore, accept the revision petition, set aside the orders of the lower Courts and remand the case to the Collector for fresh scrutiny and disposal. K. M. A. Petition accepted.