2016 PLP 2560 (YLR)

WAHEED AKHTAR ANSARI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL-III).

This revision petition has been filed against order dated 25.05.2015, passed by learned Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), Multan Division, Multan, whereby appeal of the present petitioner was dismissed.

2. Preliminary arguments heard and record perused.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that father of the petitioners was Lambardar and he was allotted 100-kanals land under Lambardari grant. He remained in cultivating possession of the same till his death. On promulgation of a notification in the year, 1976 regarding grant of proprietary rights, Barkat Ali father of the petitioners applied for the same. However, proprietary rights were not granted. But later on, again a notification was issued on 17.01.2006 whereby only lease of land under Lambardari grant was allowed. However, Muhammad Akbar, present respondent submitted an application to District Collector, Khanewal for allotment of the land in question under Lambardari grant, which was allowed vide order dated 30.12.2013. Appeal of the petitioners filed against this order was dismissed vide order dated 22.05.2015 without appreciating contention of the petitioners. Under the notification issued in year 1976, proprietary rights of the land of Lambardari grant were granted to various Lambardars. But, in this case, discriminatory treatment was given. Propriety demands that father of the petitioners also should have been treated at par with others. This notification is to be effective with immediate effect and not from retrospective effect. But, this aspect of the case was not considered by the learned lower courts while passing the impugned orders. It was prayed that the revision petition may be accepted.

4. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners and also gone through record of the case. Brief of the matter is that the present petitioners submitted an application before learned District Collector Khanewal for attestation of inheritance mutation in favour of present petitioners regarding state land bearing khasra No.58/9, 12 to 19, 22 to 24 and 25/1, measuring 100-kanals, situated in Chak No.151/10-R, Tehsil Jahanian, District Khanewal allotted to father of the petitioner under Lambardari grant. While present respondent No.2 submitted application before learned District Collector, Khanewal for allotment of the above mentioned land to him under Lambardari grant. Learned District Collector accepted application of Muhammad Akbar, present respondent No.2 and rejected application of present petitioners vide order dated 30.12.2013. The concluding para of the order reads as under:-- "I considered the arguments and examined the record. It is established that appointment order of Muhammad Akbar as Permanent Lambardar has become final and is not contravened in any court of law, therefore, his right for Lambardari Grant is created being successor of the deceased Lambardar, Barkat Ali to whom, the state land comprising khasra No.58/9,12 to 19,22 to 24,25/1 measuring 100 Kanals situated in chak No.151/10-R Tehsil Jahanian District Khanewal was allotted vide mutation No.19 under Pedigree Livestock Breeding Scheme (Lambardari Grant), for which neither he applied for grant of proprietary rights during life time nor proprietary rights were conferred upon him by the competent authority. The application dated 04.08.1976 is not marked by the Deputy Commissioner Multan to whom it was addressed, hence not authenticated. Legal heirs of the deceased Lambardar are not entitled any relief on the basis of unauthenticated application dated 04.08.1976. In view of above, application of Muhammad Akbar, Lambardar is accepted and Lambardari Grant comprising khasra No.58/9,12 to 19,22 to 24,25/1 measuring 100 Kanlas stunted in chak No.151/10-R Tehsil Jahanian District Khanewal is transferred in his name, while applications of Mr. Said Muhammad dated 12.01.2003 and 19.03.2013 are hereby dismissed accordingly"

5. Feeling aggrieved by the order, the present petitioners filed an appeal before learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Multan Division, Multan, which was dismissed vide order dated 22.05.2015. The concluding para of the order reads as under:-

6. The above order is quite exhaustive and full of sound reasoning. During arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners himself admitted that as per present status the impugned land had been allotted to deceased lambardar/father of the present petitioners as Lambardari grant being lambardar. After death of the predecessor of the present petitioner, the present respondent No.02 has been appointed Lambardar of the village and such appointment has been upheld up to the level of August Supreme Court of Pakistan. As per notification No.812-2010/586-C(V), dated 19.05.2010, such grant is to be transferred to the newly appointed lambardar. The operative part reads as under:-- "In case of death of a Lambardar, the land shall remain with the legal heirs of deceased Lambardar till the appointment of new Lambardar under Rule 17(a) to whom it shall be allotted".

7. In the light of above, it appeared that due to such high stake of impugned land, the present petitioners contested upto the highest judicial forum. After losing upto that August level, now they are trying to manipulate the things through instant frivolous litigation. It is established that the impugned order suffers with no lacuna and warrants no interference. The petitioners have no claim, whatsoever, against the impugned land. Hence, the revision petition is dismissed and impugned order dated 22.05.2015, passed by learned Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), Multan Division, Multan, is upheld. HBT/23/Rev. Petition dismissed.