MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.--- According to the contents of this writ petition, the petitioners were cultivating the agricultural land of one Ata Muhammad since before Kharif, 1971, located in District Vehari. The land was surrendered upon promulgation of M.L.R.115 and the petitioners are cultivating the land as tenants of the Provincial Government. However, the said land could not be allotted to them under the provisions of the said M.L.R. The predecessor-in-interest of the private respondents i,e, Mst. Hashmat Habib-ur-Rehman was a Government Servant and her holding in Tehsil Alipur, District Muzaffargarh came to be scrutinized. She as well as her husband (both civil servants) filed the declarations and sought benefit of para.10 of M.L.R.115 to retain 100 acres of land each. The D.L.C.
Rejected the prayer on 28-5-1972 and so was the case with the appeal. However, the learned Chairman, Federal Land Commission, Islamabad, allowed the revision of the private respondents and held that they are entitled to the said benefit and proceeded to allot the said land in Vehari in lieu of the land that had been resumed from them and which had been allotted to tenants. This was done vide order, dated 22-8-1996.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contend that notwithstanding the fact that the land had not been allotted to the petitioners, since they are cultivating the land, the same could not have been transferred to the private respondents in lieu of the land illegally resumed from them. The IA learned A.A.-G., on the other hand, draws our attention to a judgment in the case of Ranjha and others v. Mst. Zahraj Begum and others 2004 SCM R 734 that the petitioners not being allottees are neither entitled to the said land nor have locus standi to file this writ petition.
3. We have examined the writ petition and the accompanying documents. It is an admitted fact that no land at Vehari was allotted to the petitioners. On the other hand, the learned Chairman, Federal Land Commission, directed that since the land taken from the private respondents had been allotted to the tenants, they should not be disturbed and the land at Vehari belonging to the Commission was to be given to the respondents in lieu of the said land. It will, thus, be seen that the rights of the tenants, who are so within the meaning of law, have been duly protected whereas the petitioners have no locus standi even to file this writ petition. We also find that the said judgment fully supports the contention of the learned A.A.-G. The writ petition accordingly is dismissed but without any orders as to costs.