2015 PLP 138 (MLD)

WAHEED AKHTAR ANSARI, (MEMBER JUDICIAL-III).

This revision petition has been filed against order dated 18-6-2012, passed by learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Multan Division, Multan, whereby appeal of the present petitioner was dismissed.

2. Arguments heard and record perused.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the impugned orders are the result of misreading of the record. The petitioner was appointed Lambardar being the most suitable person and he was performing his duties as such since 2009. As the petitioner was not granted land under Lambardari Grant, therefore, he applied for allotment of land in the adjoining village under the provisions of the then prevalent notification dated 21-5-2011. The impugned orders have been passed without appreciation of the contention, pleading and documentary evidence of the petitioner. Finally, it was prayed that the revision petition may be accepted.

4. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the report submitted by learned District Collector and perused the record available in the case file including the impugned orders. Brief of the matter is that the present petitioner submitted an application to learned District Collector, Khanewal for allotment of land under Lambardari Grant in the adjacent Chak No.14/GH. The District Collector rejected the said application vide order dated 23-3-2012. The operative para of the order is as under:-- "According to the report of field staff and Colony Officer, state land is not available in Mauza Gobind Gargh, which can be allotted to the petitioner under Lambardari Grant. While available state land in Chak No.14/GH can't be allotted to the petitioner as the Government of the Punjab, Colonies Department vide Notification No. 918-2011/399-C (V) dated 21-5-2011 withdrew clause 8(a) from Notification No.81-2006/ 50-CV dated 17-1-2006 which stated that state land of physical joining/adjoining can be allotted to the Lambardar. Learned counsel's plea that the petitioner submitted application under decision before issuance of Notification dated 21-5-2011 is not based on fact because application was submitted on 13-6-2011. It is pertinent to mention that Notification dated 21-5-2011 shall take effect on all applications which were under process / pending adjudication at the time of issuance. In view of the above, the application merits no consideration and the same is hereby dismissed being against the spirit of policy in vogue". The appeal filed by the present petitioner against the order was dismissed by learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Multan Division, Multan, vide order dated 18-6-2012. The operative part of the order is as under:-- "Arguments heard. Record perused. During the course of hearing, a fresh report was called for from District Collector, Khanewal. As per his report, Govt. of Punjab, Colonies Department vide Notification No.98-2011/399-C(V) dated 21-5-11, has imposed ban on such allotments. Further, this notification shall take effect on all applications which were under process/pending adjudication at the time of issuance. In view of the afore-mentioned notification of Board of Revenue, Punjab, I find no justification to interfere with the impugned order, which is upheld and the appeal, having no force, is rejected". The latest instructions of Board of Revenue, Punjab, in this regard has been circulated vide letter No.918-2011/399-CV, dated 21-5-2011, which reads as under:-- "The Government of the Punjab in the Colonies Department is pleased to withdraw the following Clause added vide Notification No.1762-2007/1263-CV, dated 22-10-2007 after the Clause 8 of the Notification No.81-2006/50-CV, dated 17-1-2006 with immediate effect:-- Clause 8(a) "In case State land is not available in village of Lambardar he may be provided State land in physically joining village/adjoining village". From the above, it is clear that facility of allotment of Lambardari grant in adjoining village has been withdrawn vide above instructions since 21-5-2011, when the application of the present petitioner may be pending adjudication as per his contention. It is settled principle of law that all matters even pending are to be looked into / decided as per policy in vogue, unless provided otherwise. The impugned orders have been passed on the same principle, which are quite lawful and needs no interference. Hence, the revision petition is dismissed being devoid of merits and impugned order dated 18-6-2012, passed by learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Multan Division, Multan, is upheld. HBT/13/Rev. Petition dismissed.