' This is a revision petition against the order of the Commissioner Sargodha, dated 14-1-1984 whereby he rejected the appeal of the petitioners and upheld the order of the DC/Collector, Bhakkar, dated 28-5-1983 vide which he had directed the respondents to pay the sale price of land allotted to them under adjustment scheme.
2. The facts of the case are that the T. D. A. Acquired 316 K. 4 M. Of land from the respondents in village Daggar Qureshi as detailed below :- S.No, Name of Owner Area Acquired 1 Aman Ullah s/o Abdul Khaliq, Caste Awan 79 - 1 2 Abdul Khaliq s/o Ghulam Hussain, Caste Awan. 79 - 1 3 Abdul Haq s/o Ghulam Hussain, Caste Awan. 79 - 1 4 Ishfaq Ullah s/o Abdul Haq, Caste Awan. 79 - 1 ' The respondents were entitled for the adjustment of this land as it was cultivated one and no compensation was to be paid to them. According to the scheme of adjustment an area measuring 62 K. - 16 M., out of the shares of the respondents was to be reserved for the welfare of the public.
The Land Officer. T. D. A. On 18-11-1975 made the following adjustment to the respondents :- {{TABLE}} S.No, Name of allottee Area Reserved Net Area Area Excess Acqui- for Welf- to be allot- Area of red are of given by ted which Public way of price is adjust- payable ment K. - M. K. - M. K. - M. K. - M. K. - M.
1 Aman Ullah s/o Abdul 79 - 1 15 - 14 63 - 7 123 - 4 59 - 17 Khaliq.
2 Abdul Khaliq s/o 79 - 1 15 - 14 63 - 7 120 - 0 56 - 13 Ghulam Hussain.
3 Abdul Haq s/o Ghulam 79 - 1 15 - 14 63 - 7 122 - 11 59 - 4 Hussain.
4 Ishfaq Ullah s/o Abdul 79 - 1 15 - 14 63 - 7 119 - 15 56 - 8 Haq. {{TABLE}} ' The possession of the area so allotted was delivered to them. They were required to make payment of the allotted area in excess of their entitlement. In the meanwhile the petitioners and others, made complaint against them before the Board of Revenue that they in violation of the terms and conditions of the allotment sold the land to Muhammad Nawaz, etc. The Board of Revenue sent the application to the That Development Authority in July, 1976 with the direction to dispose it of according to rules. The Authority did not take any action on the application till 22-5- 1982 when notice was issued to the respondents for 30-5-1982. The EACO, Bhakkar after an inquiry passed an order on 4-7-1982, that the respondents should pay the price of the land allotted to them in excess of their entitlement in order to acquire the Proprietary Rights. Aggrieved by this order the petitioners filed appeal before the Commissioner who on 17-10-1982,'remanded the case to the .D. C./Collector, Bhakkar for fresh decision. The D. C./Collector heard the parties and observed that the adjustment made to the respondents was in accordance with the orders of the Board of Revenue contained in memo, No, 14655-59/308-C, dated 15-1-1960. He further observed that average sale price of Rs, 294.40 per acre of the land was calculated as the transactions took place in 1953 and directed the respondents to pay Rs, 1,000 per acre in lump sum as price of land allotted to them in excess of their entitlement with interest within one montu. Aggrieved by the orders the petitioners again hide appeal before the Commissioner on the ground that the respondents had purchased the land from Sadiq aussaia Snan and Fida Hussain Snah vide Mutation No, 592, dated 18-6-1950 and its possession had been transferred to them in cultivation column. He had contended that Sadiq Hussain Shah, etc. Could not alienate any land out of the Shamlat Khata without its partition. It had further been argued that the respondents by further alienating the land had committed breach of conditions whereas they could not do so without obtaining prior permission' of the competent authority under section 19 of the Colony Act. It had been argued that the area acquired from them was only 316 K.-4 M., whereas they, through irregular means, got allotted/adjusted an area of 485 K.-10 M. It had been contended that Sadiq Hussain Shah etc. Had obtained compensation from the T.D.A. Of the land acquired from them and thus the respondents were not entitled to any adjustment and that the allotment/adjustment made in their favour was not approved by the T.D.A. Board or the Chairman, T.D.A. As required vide orders, dated 24-1-1978 and 25-1-1978. He had argued that the allot-meats, adjustment made in favour of the respondents were irregular. The Commissioner after considering the arguments of the parties observed that the vendors could alienate the land in their possession as shareholder out of the Shamlat Khata and Sadiq Hussain etc. Alienated the land which was within their entitlement and no irregularity was committed. He further observed that according to the instructions the land- owners owning less than 15 Acres of land were entitled to obtain grants upto 15 Acres and the negligible increase of 2 to 3 Kanals was to be ignored. He observed that the allegation that Sadiq Hussain Shah etc. Had received any compensation of Khasra No, 538 was incorrect as the compensation register does not show any such payment made to them. He observed that the non-payment of the adjustment by the T.D.A. Board or the Chairman, T.D.A. Had been covered by the That Development Validating Ordinance, 1971 and there remained no irregularity in the adjustment. He dismissed the appeal hence this revision petition.
2. Ghulam Hussain alias Hasna has filed application to be impleaded as party. I have heard the learned counsel. He contended that the applicant has not yet been compensated for 77 Kanals of land acquired from him alongwith other land out of Shamlat Khata but the respondents who were not entitled for any compensation have been adjusted land against law. He contended that he had made complaint against the respondents on 12-6-1976 before this Court which was sent to the Settlement Officer, Bhakkar for enquiry and action but no action was taken on that application and it remained pending from 1976 to 1982 and the applicant could not obtain any compensation. He contended that EACO/ Collector, Bhakkar on 8-7-1976 after enquiry had recommended the resumption of land from the respondents but no action was taken upto 22-5-1982. He contended that he was necessary party but was not associated at any stage by lower Officers. I have considered the arguments and perused the petition. It -shows that he was neither a party before the Collector nor had filed any appeal against the adjustment of land made to the respondents by the D. C./Collector. By applying on executive side for an enquiry does not create a right for a person to become a party in judicial case. The request of Ghulam Hussain to be impleaded as party is rejected.
3. 1 had heard the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that tine respondents were neither owners of this land nor the T.D.A. Acquired any area from them. The respondents had based their claim on Mutation No, 592, dated 18-6-190 vide which Sadiq Hussain Shah and Fida Hussain Shah had sold out Khasra No, 538 measuring 795 K. 11 M. Out of Shamlat Khata situated in Village Daggar Qureshi to them although the Khata had not yet been partitioned and only the possessionary right of cultivation were transferred. He contended that the SACO/Collector, Bhakkar in his enquiry report bad held that the proposed adjustment in favour of the respondents was not approved by the Chairman T.D.A. Or the T.D.A. Board. He contended that as alleged by the respondents they owned 27 K. 11 M. Of land in Mauza Daggar Qureshi and according to section 21(2) of the Thal Development Act, 1949 as amended it was to be acquired. He contended that the respondents violated the conditions of allotment by selling the land without permission under section 19 of Colony Act. He contended that the respondents obtained 485 K. 10 M. Of land against their 316 K. 4 M. Of land acquired from them against the provision of law. He contended that Sadiq Hussain Shah and Fida Hussain Shah had already obtained cash compensation from the T.D.A. He argued that the Commissioner has himself observed in his impugned order that excess land has been adjusted to the respondents. He urged that the impugned order be set aside.
4. The learned counsel for the respondents contended that the land of village Daggar Qureshi was acquired vide Notification No, 30263, dated 15-8-1951. He contended that according to Notification No, 53-C, dated 15-6-1952 the persons from whom less than 15 Acres of land was - acquired were to be adjusted 15 Acres of land under compensatory grant. He argued that during this period under the peasant grant scheme the allotments were also being made and each respondent was allotted 15 Acres of land and possession was delivered on 23-11-1951. He argued that the price of the lane was assessed at the rate of Rs, 1,000 per Acre as approved by the Board of Revenue. He contended that the approval to deposit the price of land was made by the Collector in year 1968 and it was deposited in 1983 and mutation of Haqooq Milkiat was sanctioned on 31-1-1984. He contended that the adjustments stood confirmed by Revalidating Act of 1971. He contended that the petitioners were their tenants and could not challenge the adjustment. He contended that Ghulam Hussain who has requested for his right of return has no concern with the land adjusted to the respondents. He can only claim the available land and cannot be a party in this case.
5. The Colony Clerk stated that the Shamlat Khatas were not partitioned. He stated that several cases hitting the adjustment of village Daggar Aulakh, Dagaar Qureshi, Daggar Wan Gujjran and Daggar Badshah are pending before the High Court and status quo orders were issued. He stated that rights of return have not yet been determined and are still sub judice. He stated that the adjustment file of the village was prepared in 1959-60 but was not confirmed. He stated that the owners moved a writ petition in 1961. He stated that earlier in 1951 adjustment was made to the owners but later on it was declared void. He stated that in year 1978 same adjustments were proposed and some out of those were finalized. He contended that Local Officers were given the powers for adjustment.
6. The Patwari stated that the area as Shamlat Khata was 117,555 K. 5 M. And-out of it the thane of Sadiq Hussain etc, was 795 K. 11 M. He contended that according to record of 1978-79 and thereafter the respondents were in possession of the land as unauthorised occupants. He stated that according to Fard Taqseem the respondents were shown allottee of the land. He stated that Mutation No, 592 for the sale of 318 K. 4 M. Of land out of Shamlat Khata from Sadiq Hussain Shah in cultivating "column was sanctioned on 18-6-1950 in favour of Abdul Khaliq etc.
7. The D. C./Collector in his comments has stated that the sale by Sadiq Hussain etc. From Shamlat Khata in favour of the respondents was justified as they were Ala-cum-Adna Maliks. He also reported that being owners of less than 15 acres they were entitled to obtain the grants upto 15 acres which were called compensatory grants. He has reported that though approval for the compensatory grants to the respondents was not obtained but this flaw has been covered by the Thal Development (Validating) Ordinance XV of 1971. He has stated that Sadiq Hussain and Fida Hussain did not receive any compensation of Khasra No, 538 which they had sold to respondents through Mutation No, 592 on 18-6-1950, much before the acquisition of the land by the T.D.A. He has reported that the compensation paid to them on 22-3-1963 was in respect of the land which they had inherited from Mst. Tajan through Mutation No, 637, dated 24-2-1952.
8. I have considered the arguments and perused the record of the case and the comments received from the D. C./Collector. The D. C./Collector has supported the contention of the respondents and admitted that the respondents were rightly adjusted land. The learned counsel for the petitioner could not refute the finding of the lower Courts. There is thus no ground to disagree with the concurrent findings of the Courts below.
' The revision petition is rejected.