' This is a revision petition against the order of the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Sargodha, dated 3-10-1981, whereby he rejected the appeal of the petitioner against the order of the Colony Assistant/Collector, Faisalabad; dated 3-3-1981 vide which he allotted Square No, 33/24/1,23, Square No, 35/4 to 13, measuring 105 kanals 12 marlas situated in Cbak No, 145-A/GB, Tehsil Jaranwala to Anwar Khan respondent as alternate lapd under Grow More Food Scheme.
2. The facts of the case are that the land in dispute was with the petitioner under 3 years lease scheme but he did not deposit the rent for the year 1980-81 and the land was resumed from him by the Colony Assistant/Collector vide his order dated 12-10-1980. After resumption of this land it was allotted to the respondent as alternate land under Grow More Food Scheme. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Additional Commissioner (Revenue) who observed that the allotment of the petitioner was resumed vide order dated 12-10-1980 and the appeal was time-barred He, therefore, did not find any force in the appeal and agreeing with the finding of the Colony Assistant/Collector dismissed it. Hence this revision petition.
3. I have heard the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that he was lessee of the disputed land which was within the prohibited zone since 1973 and his lease was extended up to Rabi, 1983. He contended that he applied for the grant of proprietary. Rights but his application was rejected on the ground that the disputed land was within the prohibited zone and it was observed that after the expiry of lease period the land be included in the schedule of temporary cultivation. He argued that thereafter, the disputed land was allotted to the respondent without any notice to the petitioner. He stressed that this order of allotment of the disputed land to the respondent was void and illegal and sort of review of the previous order of the Collector which could not be reviewed. He argued that the petitioner was an allottee under Grow More Food Scheme and his case for the alternate allotment was pending adjudication before the Board of Revenue, He further argued that the respondent was not entitled for the allotment of the disputed land as alternate under Grow More Food Scheme as the land which was in his original allotment under Grow More Food Scheme in Chak No,. 147/GB, since 1956 was a Chiragah land and was allotted to an evict= of Mangle Dam in 1963 and the name of the respondent was foe' the first time entered in the Khasra Girdawari in Rabi 1963 and before Rabi 1963 he was not in possession of the land and the entries in red ink were made later on by some Patwari in connivance of the respondent and these entries had no sanctity. He stressed that the Audit Officer of the Board of Revenue during his inspection had held the respondent ineligible for alternate allotment on the ground that the respondent had not taken the possession of the allotted land till Rabi 1960 and thereafter the entries were interpolated. He argued that the Colony Assistant/Collector had passed illegal order to hold the respondent eligible for the alternate allotment and illegally allotted him the disputed land. He urged that the impugned order be set aside. The respondent contended that he was rightly held eligible-for the alternate allotment and was rightly given possession after its allotment on 10-3-1981. He urged that the revision petition be dismissed. The Colony Clerk stated that the extension in lease of the petitioner was allowed after Rabi 1933 but thereafter the Colony Assistant/Collector allotted the land to the respondent as alternate land under Grow More Food Scheme. The Patwari of the circle stated that the land reserved as Chiragah and Anwar Khan respondent was in its possession now.
4. I have considered the arguments and perused the record of the case as well as the record of the Patwari and the Colony Clerk. It is admitted beyond doubt that Anwar Khan respondent was not in cultivating possession of his original allotment before 1960 and the record was later on tampered with and Rao 'Amanat Ali, Colony Assista at/Collector while declaring him alternate allotment, did not examine the record no felt it necessary to go through the report of the Audit Officer of the Board of Revenue and passed an illegal and void order. The impugned order is, therefore, set aside. It I also proved from the record that the petitioner did not deposit the rent for 1980-81 and the land stood resumed from his name vide order dated 12-10-1980 of the Colony Assistant/Collector and thus the petitioner has no case. The land should now be disposed of according to the policy of the Government. The revision petition is thus disposed of.