' These are three revisions against the order of Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Multan, dated 14-2-1982 whereby he rejected the appeals of the petitioners against the order of District Collector, Vehari, dated 27-8-1980 vide which he did not approve the auction of Sqr. No,. 6/3 to 6/7/2, 8, 13/2, 14 to 17, 24, 25/1, 26 Sqr. No,. 5/11/1, 20, 21 situated in Chak No,. 261/EB in favour of Bashir Ahmad and Faqir Muhammad and Lot No,. 5 in favour of Faqir Muhammad and Lot No,. 4 in favour of Bashir Ahmad.
2. The facts of the cases are that the disputed land was put to auction by the Assistant Commissioner/Collector, Vehari for 2 years from Kharif 1980 to Rabi 1982 on 27-8-1980 and recommended the case for the approval of the District Collector. The District Collector did not approve the auction on the ground that the land was disputed. Aggrieved by this order the petitioners filed appeals before the Additional Commissioner (Revenue) who vide his order dated 14--1982 observed that the case of one Muhammad Ali respondent who obtained the land under Grow More Food Scheme was pending before the Board of Revenue and rejected the appeals.
Hence these revision petitions.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the disputed land was allotted to the respondent under Grow More Food Scheme in the year 1957-58 but was resumed on 19-10-1962 being within the prohibited zone of Municipal Committee, Burewala. The request of the respondent for the restoration of lot was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner/Collector on 4-12-1973 observing that the respondent was out of possession of the land since 1968 and was with Faqir Muhammad petitioner on lease. The appeal of the respondent was also rejected by the Additional Commissioner (Revenue) on 26-1-1974 on the ground that the land was situated within the prohibited zone and the respondent filed a revision petition before the Board of Revenue. He stressed that the disputed land was included in the schedule of temporary cultivation and was put to auction and the petitioners were the highest bidders and the auction was liable to be approved, but the Deputy. Commissioner did not grant the approval on the erroneous consideration although no stay order was produced by any one. The Additional Commissioner (Revenue) dismissed the appeal of the petitioners on the ground that the matter of the disputed land was pending before the Board of Revenue whereas the respondent had withdrawn his revision petition before the Board of Revenue on 7-5-1981. He argued that the respondent was allotted alternate land in Chak No,. 56/W. B. And thus was not entitled to retain this land. He argued that the petitioners were sitting tenants of the disputed land and were entitled for the extension of their lease. He argued that the impugned order be set aside and the auction of lease be confirmed. The learned counsel for the respondent argued that the disputed land was with the respondent under Grow More Food Scheme and he had installed tubewell there and made other investments. On the resumption of his lot he approached the then Revenue Minister who on 14-6-1976 ordered that "if the applicant has installed a tubewell and made other investment on the land then the applicant may be considered for the lease of this land most sympathetically." 'He argued that the land was leased out to him by the Board of Revenue vide his order dated 9-7-1976 and its possession was delivered to him but was again. Forcibly taken over by the petitioners. He stressed that in Chak No,. 56/WB he had been allotted alternate land in year 1971 which was barren and was cancelled by the Assistant Commissioner/Collector, Vehari on 7-5-1976 and be was given alternate land in Chak. No,. 146-EB, which was again allotted to some other persons. He stressed that the petitioners who were in illegal occupation of the land were ejected from the land on 31-3- 1980 under section 32 of the Colony Act. It was further contended that the petitioners lost their case upto the level of the High Court. He argued that when he was allowed the possession by the Board of Revenue on executive side he withdrew his revision petition. He stressed that orders were issued by the Board of Revenue many a time for the delivery of possession to the respondent and the possession was delivered to him on 24-12-1981. He urged that the impugned order be set aside. The Patwari of the circle 56-W. B. Stated that in the revenue record the allotment in favour of Muhammad All respondent was still in existence though be never took its possession. The Patwari of circle 146/EB stated that Muhammad Ali respondent never took the possession of his allotted land and it was allotted to some one else. The Patwari of Chak No,. 261/EB stated that the petitioners were ejected from the land and its possession was delivered to the respondent on 24- 12-1981.
4. I have considered the arguments and perused the record. The alternate allotment made in favour of respondent in Chak No,. 56/WB, 146/EB were cancelled. The allotment already made in Chak No,. 261/EB under Grow More Food Scheme to Muhammad Ali respondent which was cancelled due to its being within the prohibited zone was again allotted to him temporarily but its proprietary rights were not to be allowed to him. It was ordered to put him in possession of the land but litigation started and due to civil' litigation he could not obtain the land. The land was illegally put to auction by the Assistant Commissioner/Collector when it was temporarily allotted to the respondent and it was not to be leased out. The Deputy Commissioner/ Collector was, therefore, right in not approving the auction. The lease term has also since expired. There is thus no force in the revision petitions which are hereby rejected. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.