2002 PLP 1992 (CLC)

Syed Anis Sadiq .for Respondent. Date of hearing: 7th November, 2000. Brief facts of the case are that Muhammad Sarwar the predecessor‑in‑interest of the present petitioner was allegedly allotted 100 Kanals of land in Chak No.359/EB, Tehsil Burewala in 1962 by the Collector, Pakpattan Sharif under Islamabad Oustees Scheme. A Declaratory suit with regard to this land having been decreed in favour of One Muhammad Ramzan the previous occupant, Muhammad Sarwar made an application to the District Collector, Vehari for alternate allotment of land situated in Chak No. 145/WB, Tehsil Mailsi which having been allotted to Haq Nawaz, Lamberdar in 1965 under the Pedigree Livestock Breeding Scheme had been resumed from him in 1982. Mst. Fakhar‑un Nisa widow of deceased Mubashar Abbas who had been appointed as the successor Lambardar after the death of Haq Nawaz also asserted claim on the said land and moved the District Collector, Vehari for impleading her as a party in the case. Vide his order dated 15‑1‑1996, the District Collector held that Ghulam ‑Sarwar was entitled for alternate allotment and hence his case may be forwarded to the Board of Revenue for according necessary approval. Subsequently, vide his order dated 15‑4‑1996, the District Collector, Vehari allotted 100 Kanals of land in Chak No. 145/WB, Tehsil Mailsi comprising Khasra Nos. l3/2 and 14 to 25 of Square No. 36 to Ghulam Sarwar under the Islamabad Oustees Scheme. The District Collector made this alternate allotment subject to the condition that the land was included in the Schedule of Islamabad Oustees Scheme and there was no stay order from any Court. Both the aforesaid orders of the District Collector were challenged before the Commissioner, Multan Division by respondent Mohsin Abbas (minor) son of Mubashar Abbas deceased Lamberdar through his mother Mst. Najam‑ul‑Nisa and by Mst. Nasim Fardous another wife of deceased Mubashar Abbas. Vide his order dated 12‑6‑1999, the Commissioner, Multan Division accepted the appeal of respondent Mohsin Abbas and allotted the disputed land' to him on lease till his holding the office of Lamberdar of the Chak. This order has been assailed in the present revision petition by the successors‑in‑interest of Muhammad Sarwar the allottee under the Islamabad Oustees Scheme.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the land initially allotted to Muhammad Sarwar (the predecessor‑in‑interest of the present petitioners) in Chak No.359/EB, Tehsil Burewala having gone to Muhammad Ramzan in pursuance of the Civil Court order the disputed land of Chak No. 145/WB, Tehsil Mailsi was validly allotted to Muhammad Sarwar by the District Collector, Vehari vide his order dated 15‑4-1996. According to the learned counsel, ‑the allotment of the said land in favour of Haq Nawaz the then Lamberdar under the Pedigree Livestock Breeding Scheme had been cancelled long ago and the land remained under the illegal occupation of one Ahmad Bakhsh. The learned counsel asserted that subsequently, the land stood included in the Schedule of Islamabad Ousatee Scheme and had been allotted to Muhammad Sarwar after bringing the matter to the notice of the Board of Revenue. The learned counsel further asserted that while the whole price had been paid by Muhammad Sarwar, there were no lawful grounds for the lease of this land to respondent Mohsin Abbas under the Lamberdari Scheme by the Commissioner, Multan Division. With these arguments, the learned counsel pleaded for setting aside the impugned order of the Commissioner, Multan Division.

3. The learned counsel for respondent Mohsin Abbas argued that the disputed land stood previously allotted under the Pedigree Livestock Breeding Scheme to Haq Nawaz the deceased Lamberdar of the Chak. According to the learned counsel, in the relevant entry of this land in the Schedule of Islamabad Oustees Scheme the word "Majwizza Numberdari" also existed: The learned counsel further asserted that respondent Mohsin Abbas having been subsequently appointed as Lamberdar of the Chak, the land was rightly allotted to him on lease by the Commissioner through his impugned order. The learned counsel contended that the claim of the petitioners can be satisfied by allotting them some other alternate land.

4. I have given due consideration to the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record. It is an undisputed fact that the claim of Muhammad Sarwar the predecessors‑in‑interest of the present petitioners under the Islamabad Oustees Scheme required to be satisfied. Therefore, the allotment of the disputed land was rightly made to him by the, District Collector against the said claim. The cost had also been deposited by him. The examination of the Register of the Schedule of Islamabad Oustees Scheme produced by Mr. Muhammad Anwar, Colony Clerk, Deputy Commissioner Office, Vehari revealed that the land stood validly included in the said Schedule. However, in the relevant entry about this land in the said Register. Surprisingly the word "Majwizza Numberdari" stand recorded. But, no signatures of any official with regard to the incorporation of these words exists there. On the very face of it, these words appear to have been added at some subsequent stage dishonestly through interpolation. Otherwise, how is it possible, that while on the one hand the land was being included in the Schedule of the Islamabad Oustees Scheme, at the same time it could be shown as reserved for Lambardari grant i.e. "Majwizza Numberdari". On the other hand; the fact of the disputed land having been resumed on 13‑11‑1982 from deceased Haq Nawaz the previous Lamberdar and an allottee under Pedigree Livestock Breeding, Scheme and thereafter having remained under illegal occupation of one Ahmad Bakhsh son of Allah Ditta goes unchallenged. Thus, on no, lawful grounds respondent Mohsin Abbas who was appointed as second successor Lamberdar of the 'Chak much subsequently could assert any claim on this land. Besides, 'the leases under. Pedigree Livestock Scheme are governed by specific instructions of the Board of Revenue. Under these instructions, only the leases in favour of the sitting lessees were to be extended under certain specified terms and conditions. Thus, under no Rules, the disputed land could be allotted on lease to respondent Mohsin Abbas. The learned Commissioner in his impugned under had not indicated as to under which Rules/Policy he had ordered the lease in favour of the said respondent. 'Thus, the impugned order of learned Commissioner was passed without jurisdiction and had no sanction of any Rules/Policy behind it. Through this arbitrary order the lawful interests of allottee Muhammad Sarwar/his predecessors‑in -interest were harmed unjustifiably.

5. For the foregoing reasons, the revision petition is accepted and the impugned order dated 12‑6‑1999 of the learned Commissioner, Multan Division having been passed against law, the same is set aside. The consequence would be that the order dated 15‑4‑1996 of the District Collector, Vehari about allotment of the land in question to Muhammad Sarwar under the Islamabad Oustees Scheme would stand upheld.

6. A copy of this order be sent to the District Collector, Vehari for information. H.B.T./44/Rev. Revision accepted.