' WAHEED AKHTAR ANSARI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL-III).--These revision petition and appeal have been filed against order dated 19-5-2012, passed by learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Multan Division, whereby appeal of the present petitioner (Manzoor Ahmad) was partially accepted and State land was ordered to be resumed. As facts and law points involved in these cases are interconnected, therefore, these shall be disposed of, through this single order.
2. Arguments heard and record perused.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant Maqsood Ahmad argued that learned District Officer (Revenue) rightly allotted the land in question to the appellant vide order dated 18-11-2008 on the recommendations of District Remount Officer, Sahiwal after hearing contention of the parties.
Grandfather of the petitioner namely Ahmaa Ion of Lal died on 18-4-2011 and at that time, the land in question was under possession of the petitioner. The respondent Manzoor Ahmad was disobedient son of the deceased allottee and he filed a time barred appeal, which was partially accepted by learned Additional Commissioner and tenancy of the land in question was made open and the earlier allotment in the name of Maqsood Ahmad was cancelled. The impugned order is against the law and facts of the case. The appellant had recommendations of the District Remount Officer, Sahiwal, which were made after hearing contentions of the parties. The land in question never remained under possession of respondent Manzoor Ahmad nor he ever kept mare for looking after. On the force of above arguments, it was prayed that the appeal may be accepted.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner Manzoor Ahmad contended that father of the petitioner was allottee of land measuring 200-kanals situated in Chak No,53/15-L, Tehsil Mian Channu. The lease of land in question was extended till 4-8-2008 and he remained in cultivating possession of the same. After his death on 18-4-2011, the inheritance Mutation No,1203, dated 29-4-2011 was sanctioned. Thereafter, the petitioner asked fard from the patwari, who told that his father in his life time had transferred the land in question in the name of Maqsood Ahmad appellant in R.O.A. No, 80/12. Then the petitioner filed an appeal against the order dated 18-11-2008 in the court of learned Additional Commissioner, which was partially accepted, whereby tenancy of the land in question was kept open and the land was given on Superdari. The petitioner is in possession of the land in question and he fulfills all the terms and conditions for allotment of the same. Therefore, the land was to be given to him, but it was not done by the learned lower court. Finally, it was prayed that the revision petition may be dismissed.
5. I have considered the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, gone through record available in the case file including the impugned orders and written arguments submitted by the parties. Brief of the matter is that Ahmad father of Manzoor Hussain present petitioner in R.O.R. No, 1328/2012 and respondent No, 1 in R.O.A. No, 80/2012 was allottee of 200-kanals of land situated in Chak No,53/15-L, Tehsil Mian Channu, district Khanewal, under Horse Breeding Scheme. The same land was leased out to Ahmad father of Manzoor Hussain present petitoner for a period of 5 years from 1-7-2007 to 20-6-2012. Later on, the allottee submitted an application to learned District Officer (Revenue) that he being old aged person cannot look after the mare and cultivate the land in question and wanted to transfer lease of the land to Maqsood Ahmad, the present appellant in R.O.A. No,80/2012. The operative para of the order is as under:-- "In view of above and as recommended by the District Remount Officer, Sahiwal the Horse Breeding Tenancy (square No,58) situated in Chak No,53/15-L, Tehsil Mianchannu, District Khanewal, already allotted to Ahmed s/o Lal is hereby transferred from his name and is allotted to Maqsood Ahmed son of Abdul Rehman grandson of the breeder w,e,f, the date of issuance of this order for an initial period of six years under Horse Breeding Scheme. Orders be issued accordingly."
' Feeling aggrieved by the order, Manzoor Ahmad filed an appeal before learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Multan, which was partially accepted vide order dated 19-5-2012 and the tenancy was made open. The operative part of the order is reproduced as under : {{URDU TEXT}} ' After going through the whole exercise, it appeared that impugned order is lawful. However, at this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner Manzoor Hussain invited the attention of this court towards instructions in-Memo No, 868-C dated 19-2-1952 of Colonies Department which reads as under:-- "The Government of Punjab have thereof decided, with the concurrence of the of the Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Defence (Army Branch), that the allotment of horse/mule breeding tenancies falling vacant owing the confiscation or other., reasons should, in .Future, be made purely on merits and refugees ex-servicemen and local farmers should be equally eligible for such tenancies. However, in the case of a tenancy falling vacant on the death of a lessee with a good horse/mule breeding record it should continue to be allotted to the heirs of the deceased in preference to any other applicant."
In the wake of above position, the impugned order is still lawful and does not warrant any major interference. Hence, the appeal and revision petitions are dismissed: The impugned order dated 19-5-2012 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner Revenue Multan Division, Multan is upheld with the modification that first of all, the issue of allotment on the basis of inheritance will be exhausted in terms of clause referred to above. If no one, out of the successors of deceased allottee, Ahmad qualifies for the lease under the scheme, then the impugned land would be offered to other applicants in terms or Notification referred to above.