1995 PLP 246 (MLD)

Muhammad Ashraf Azeem for Respondents (in all the Cases). These three revision petitions have been preferred against the order, dated 22‑4‑1991, whereby the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), Multan Division, rejected the appeal of the petitioners.

2. Brief facts of the case are that disputed State land situated in Chak No.162/EB, Tehsil and District, Vehari was allotted in the names of Muhammad Hanif, Muhammad Aslam and Bashir respondents under Cooperative Farming Scheme in 1962. This land remained under their cultivating possession uptil 1966. Thereafter, the petitioners and two other persons occupied the said land forcibly. The respondents submitted an application before the Assistant Commissioner/Collector, Vehari with the request that the present encroachers Nasrullah, etc. may be ejected from the said land. An order to this effect was passed by the Assistant Commissioner/Collector on 15‑6‑1970 under section 32/34 of the Colonization of ‑Government Lands Act, 1912. The petitioners were ejected and a Rapat No.433 dated 30‑7‑1970 was entered in the Roznamcha of the Patwari regarding ejectment proceedings. They, however, again occupied the land and moved an application before the Commissioner, Multan Division, Multan with the contention that the respondents had abandoned the land and that the same may now be allotted to the petitioners. The Commissioner, Multan Division called for a report from the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Farming Societies. The report in question was then submitted before the Commissioner, Multan Division on which no final order was passed. The Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, however, directed the Cooperative Society of the Chak to allow the petitioners to cultivate the land on temporary lease so that they could be made members of the Society. The Assistant Commissioner/Collector, Vehari, however, cancelled the allotment of land from the names of the respondents on 25‑11‑1978 and allotted the same in the names of the petitioners. As the Assistant Commissioner/Collector, Vehari was not competent to pass this order, therefore, the Commissioner, Multan Division was moved to allow permission for the review of the order, dated 25‑11‑1978. The requisite permission was granted and the case in question was fixed for hearing before the District Collector, Vehari. The District Collector observed that the land in question was originally allotted in the names of the respondents and the petitioners had occupied it forcibly. He also observed that their illegal occupation had been removed on 30‑7‑1977, but they had again reoccupied it in an illegal manner. It was also observed that the cancellation of allotment from the names of the respondents in the given circumstances was not fully justified. He, therefore, reviewed the order passed by the then Assistant Commissioner/Collector, Vehari on 25‑11‑1978 and resumed the land from the names of the petitioners and restored it in the names of the original allottees i.e. respondents whose allotment had not been cancelled at any stage. The petitioners aggrieved by the impugned order preferred an appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Multan Division, who rejected the same vide his order, dated 22‑4‑1991. Hence these three revision petitions which are being disposed of with this single order.

3. I have heard arguments of the learned counsel for both the parties and have perused the record.

4. In this case the petitioners being encroachers of the land in dispute were ejected under section 32/34 of Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912 by the Assistant Commissioner/Collector, vide his order, dated 15‑12‑1970. The encroachers showed their highhandedness by occupying the land in dispute but were again ejected on 30‑7‑1977. It therefore, looks strange as to how the Assistant Commissioner/Collector, Vehari cancelled the allotment of the respondents who were lawful allottees and further allotted the said land to the encroachers vide his order dated 25‑11‑1978. The District Collector has therefore rightly reviewed the order of the Assistant Commissioner/Collector, dated 25‑11‑1978 and restored the lease of the land in dispute to the respondents who are the lawful allottees. The petitioners being encroachers have no locus standi whatsoever.

5. In view of the above observations all the revision petitions are rejected being devoid of force. The orders of the lower Courts are upheld. The possession of the land in dispute should immediately be resumed and delivered to the lawful allottees i.e. the respondents, who should deposit all the dues/arrears within three months from the receipt of this order.

6. A copy of this order may be endorsed to the District Collector for further necessary action. H.B.T./13/R Petitions rejected.