1992 PLP 2081 (CLC)

(ii) This resumed land was allotted to tenants including respondents under para. 18 (3) of MLR 115 on 14‑12‑1973. (iii) The present petitioners filed appeal against the above allotment before the Land Commissioner, Multan Division, Multan who observed that the above allotment to the present petitioners stands already cancelled vide Chief Land Commissioner's order dated 3‑5‑1975 in Revision Petitions Nos; 691 and 692 of 1974‑75 and remanded the case to Deputy Land Commissioner, Vehari with the direction that he should hear all the eligible tenants before deciding the case. (iv) Deputy Land Commissioner, Vehari vide order dated 26‑7‑1984 among others allotted land to the present two petitioners Sajwara and Yousuf and all the present respondents. (v) All the above allottees aggrieved by the order of the Deputy Land Commissioner dated 26‑7‑1984 riled appeal before the Additional Commissioner (Revenue)/Land Commissioner, Multan Division, Multan who dismissed the appeals vide his order dated 5‑6‑1985. (vi) These allottees went in revision petition before the Chief Land Commissioner who remanded the case vide his order dated 23‑7‑1985 for the fresh decision. (vii) Deputy Land Commissioner, Vehari took up the case again and decided vide his order dated 6‑10‑1986 exactly on the way of the previous decision of the Deputy Land Commissioner, Vehari dated 26‑7‑1984. The allotments were not disturbed except slight modification, in the case of one Ismail son of Chiragh. (viii)Aggrieved with this order of Deputy Land Commissioner dated 6‑10‑1986 the present petitioners went in appeal to Additional Commissioner (Revenue)/Land Commissioner, Multan Division, Multan who vide his order dated 27‑1‑1988 accepted the appeal and remanded the case with the following directions:‑‑ (a) to decide afresh keeping in view his observations; (b) to keep in view the Chief Land Commissioner's order dated 3‑5‑1975; (c) to also keep in view Punjab Land Reforms Rules, 1972. (ix) Thereafter District Collector/Deputy Land Commissioner Vehari vide his order dated 4‑1‑1989 came to the same decision taken earlier dated 6‑10‑1980. Against this the present petitioners appealed to the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Multan who upheld District Collector/Deputy Land Commissioner's order dated 4‑1‑1989 vide his order dated 14‑10‑1990. Hence these revision petitions.

3. The counsel for the petitioners and the respondents were present and heard. The learned counsel for the petitioners never assailed nor they were given opportunity to be heard and the order of the learned Chief Land Commissioner dated 23‑7‑1985 was relatable only to Chak No.221/EB and not to Chak No. 219/EB. He further argued that under Rule 12 (f) of the Punjab Land Reforms Rules, 1972, the powers to review came to an end on 30‑4‑1975 and therefore any order of Deputy Land Commissioner after 30‑4‑1975 was illegal. He claimed that the petitioners are in cultivating possession of the suit land while the respondents have never been in cultivating possession. On these grounds, he prayed that the revision petitions be accepted and the original allotment be allowed to remain.

4. The learned counsel for the respondents Ch. Muhammad Ashraf Azeem countered the arguments of the counsel for the petitioners and stated that the order passed by the Chief Land Commissioner dated 3‑5‑1975 was in revision petition and not in review petition and Chief Land Commissioner was competent to pass the order in the revision petition and those were passed? under his supervisory powers laid down in the Land Reforms Act, 1972. He further argued that those orders of the Chief Land Commissioner attained finality as nobody has challenged this order in the Lahore High Court. In light of this the vested rights that have accrued to the parties cannot be taken away with retrospective effect, He further argued that every person was given about 4‑1/2 acres of land and nobody i.e. the petitioners as well as the respondents were neglected. In the end he pleaded that the findings given by Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Multan Division, Multan vide his order dated 14‑10‑1990 which was passed on merit giving 4‑1/2 acres of land should not be disturbed and the revision petitions be dismissed.

5. I have carefully considered the arguments by both the counsel for the petitioners as well as the respondents and I have perused the record of the case. In this case, land resumed under MLR 115 was allotted to the petitioners as well as the ‑respondents under para. 18 (3) of the Regulation which proved that the petitioners were not in cultivating possession of the suit land. The petitioners have also failed to establish their claim by any documentary evidence that they were in cultivating possession of the suit land. The petitioners have not proved in any way that their claim to the suit land is superior to that of the respondents. Approximately 4‑1/2 acres were allotted to these tenants as far back as 14‑12‑1973. It would now be wrong to disturb the vested rights that have accrued to the parties while no new grounds have been advanced by the parties to establish their preferential claim to the suit land. I, therefore, dismiss the three revision petitions and uphold the orders of the Additional Commissioner (Revenue)/Land Commissioner, Multan dated 14‑10‑1990. The judgment was reserved to study the record and now the parties may be informed of the decision. A.A./495/R????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Revision Petitions dismissed.