P L D 1972 Rev (PLP)

3. Briefly the facts of the case are that Collector, Bahawal nagar vide his order dated 7‑4‑1970 allotted State land comprising Rectangle Nos. 3, 4 and 7 measuring 9 acres, 2 kanals and 14 marlas situated in Chak No. 108/Fateh to Muhammad Sharif Lambardar under the Pedigree Livestock Breeding Scheme. Aggrieved with this order the respondents preferred an appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Bahawalpur Division on the ground that the disputed area falling in rectangle No. 7 adjoined the land owned by them; and was in the shape of awkward plots, that the area leased out to the appellant was less than the unit of allotment viz., 12 acres and that it was not reserved for the purposes it has been utilized. The Additional Commissioner accordingly vide his order dated 20‑2‑1971 accepted the appeal filed by the respondents and cancelled the allotment of the appellant. Hence this second appeal.

4. The main point taken in the appeal is that the appellant is a permanent Lambardar of the Chak and is eligible to get the disputed land. The appellant has also urged that the respondents had no locus standi to challenge the order before the Additional Commissioner.

5. The judgment was reserved on 26‑10‑1971. The report about the available State land in the adjoining Chaks of Chak No. 108 was called for. The Assistant Commissioner has submitted the report vide his letter No. 602 dated 11‑11‑1971. His report indicates that State land is available in Chak Nos. 37/Fateh 38/Fateh and 169/Fateh and that .in two Chak Nos. 115/Fateh and 116/Fateh which are adjacent to Chak No. 108/Fateh no State land was available. The entire available state land in Chak No. 37/Fateh, 38/Fateh and 109/Fateh has been recorded according to the latest jamabandi as Banjar Qadeem or Ghair Mumkin.

6. The petitioner has also filed an application dated 25‑11‑1971 for consideration of additional grounds that (a) the available state land in the adjoining Chaks is not at all suitable for cultivation for the reasons that it is uncultur able waste and, even if it was cultivable, there is no easy approach to that Chak. It lien across the canal and on either side the petitioner would have to cover about 4 miles distance. (b) the petitioner Lambardar has entered into an agreement for the purchase of Killas Nos. 15, 16, 17, 20 and 24 (in part) in square No. 8 and Killas Nos. 2 (in part) to 10, 14 and 15 in square No. 10 measuring 11 acres, in Chak No. 108/Fateh. This land is adjacent to the plot in dispute (situated in square No. 7) and is irrigated from the same khal. The petitioner will also have his own independent right of way through square No. 10 by virtue of the sale and the respondent, thus would not at all be inconvenienced by the presence of the petitioner. The registered deed was to be executed in the first week of December 1971, based on the purchase agreement.

7. The question to be decided in this case is the compara tive merits of the claims of appellant Lambardar and the respon dents. The appellant has been given the land in accordance with the policy decision of the Government to allot State land to Lambardars under Pedigree Livestock Breeding Scheme. The respondents claim the allotment of this land as an awkward Baqaya. Under paragraph 354 of the Colony Manual it has been laid down that there will occasionally be found, small parcel of State land not large enough for allotment to outsiders though eminently desirable in the eyes of those who hold adjacent lands. The best way of disposing of these plots is sale by tender or auction within the village. Owners of adjoining land should be given preference if they are prepared to pay the fair price, which need not be the auction price. Subsequently it was decided vide paragraph 5 of the minutes of the meeting dated 26‑5‑1962 that Baqaya land should be sold in public auction only. This order was again subsequently superseded by another order dated 10‑3‑1970 whereby sate/lease of State land by auction was suspended. In the face of the latest orders, the respondents request` for sale of the land in dispute cannot be considered.

8. On the question of comparative merits of the two claims as, well it is obvious that the Lambardar being the public functionary appointed by the Government has a superior right and claim to the State land special if it is allotted to him In pursuance of an adopted policy and the scheme of the Government as compared to the claim, if any, of the respondents to bid for the land in public auction.

9. In view of all the above facts and circumstances, the order of the Additional Commissioner, whereby he accepted the appeal of the respondents regarding allotment of State land in dispute to the appellant Muhammad Sharif Lambardar is set aside. The allotment in favour of Muhammad Sharif Lambardar should therefore remain unaffected and be restored. Orders be issued and parties informed accordingly. Orders accordingly.