' This is a revision petition against the order of Additional Commissioner (Revenue) Faisalabad, dated 15-11-1984 whereby he observing that Abdul Ghani one of the respondents was blacksmith (Mueen) and was entitled for the allotment of Ihata No, 94-min (disputed) situated in Chak No, 104/G.B., accepted the appeal of thee 'respondents allotted them the Ihata in equal share observing that the petitioner was not Mueen of the Chak and did not consider him entitled for the allotment of the Ihata and set aside the order of AC/Collector dated 13-7-1984 vide which he had allotted the Ihata to the petitioner.
2. I have heard the parties at length and gone through the grounds of revision. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Ihata was in unauthorised possession of the respondents and proceedings under section 32/34 of the Colony Act were conducted against them and under the order of the Commissioner dated 26-6-1982 the Ihata was got vacated and left open for allotment.
He contended that the petitioner being potter applied for the allotment of the Ihata and the res- pondents also submitted application for the purpose. He contended that the AC/Collector after due enquiry that the respondents were not of the Chak and did not render any help to the Village Community and against this the petitioner had served the community' as potter and was resident of the Chak allotted the Ihata to him. He contended that the respondents filed appeal before the Additional Commissioner who remanded the case to the AC/Collector on 13-9-1982 to examine whether the Chak was situated within the prohibited zone and if so the allotment should have been under the instructions issued on 2-11-1981 for the allotment of the Ihata in prohibited zone and not under the instructions of allotment of Ihata outside the prohibited zone. He alleged that the petitioner filed a revision petition before the Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue but the revision petition failed and order of the Additional Commissioner was upheld on la-3-1983. He contended that the Chak was outside the prohibited zone and allotment made to the petitioner on 2-8-1982 was correct and the AC/ Collector had restored it vide his order dated 27-4-1983. He alleged that the possession of the Ihata was thereafter delivered to him on 30-6-1983 as per Report No, 497. He contended that three appeals were filed against the order of the AC/Collector and the Additional Commissioner after hearing the parties remanded the case on 3-9-1983 to the AC/Collector for fresh decision and parties were directed to appear before him on 9-10-1983. He contended that for the third time the AC/Collector heard the parties and on 30-7-19 4 observed that the Ihata was reserved for Mueen and none of the respondents fulfilled the conditions of allotment nor rendered any service to the Village Community and that Abdul. Ghani respondent was permanent resident of Barnala and had been earning his livelihood by making Huqqas, while Muhammad Shafi and Muhammad Latif were registered Contractors with the Canal Department Faisalabad. He further observed that Muhammad Amin respondent had been running an automobile Workshop at Sadiqabad. He contended that the AC/Collector maintained the allotment of the petitioner. He contended that the respondents again filed appeal before the appellate Court to set aside the allotment order made by the AC/Collector in favour of the petitioner and allotted the Ihata to the respondents on 15-11-1984 without considering that the AC/Collector on three different occasions i,e, on 2-8-1982, 27-4-1983 and 30-7-1984 had held the petitioner eligible for the allotment of the disputed Ihata and these findings of the lower Court ignored without any specific reasons. He argued that the petitioner was residing in the Chak since his forefathers and was permanently carrying on the business in the Chak, whereas the respondents were neither residents of the Chak nor carrying on their business. He argued that the AC/Collector after due enquiry had held that the respondents were residing out of the Chak and earning their livelihood from other places than the Chak and were not serving the Village Community. He argued that the Additional Commissioner was aware that Abdul Ghani did not perform the work of Blacksmith in the Chak and was not residing in the Chak like other respondents, yet allotted the Ihata to them. He contended that in fact Ihata No, 143 measuring 9 Marlas was occupied by two brothers of the petitioner and Ihata No, 163 measuring 9 Marlas was occupied by Ghulam Nabi another brother of the petitioner who has a big family of grown up children. He argued that the allotments of these Ihatas in favour of the brothers of the petitioner were incorporated in the revenue record. He argued that during 3 proceedings before the AC/Collector, the petitioner was held Mueen of the Chak and also that the Ihata was reserved for Mueen, but the Additional Commissioner did no depend on these findings and based his findings on the report of the Ahl-e-Commission which has never been discussed or even been referred in the earlier proceedings. He argued that in fact the said report of the Ahl-e-Commissiori was an alien document to the present proceedings. He contended that in the report of the Ahl- eCommission it was reported that "Bhatti" was recently constructed and the Ahl-e-Commission did not refer to the rights of the petitioner. He argued that if the appellate Court had found any flaw in - the enquiry it should have remanded the case for further enquiry. He urged that the impugned order be set aside and the order of the AC/Collector be restored.
3. The learned counsel for the respondents contended that Muhammad Asghar etc., were in illegal occupation of the Ihata and on the application of the respondents the AC/Collector had directed their ejectment under section 32/34 of the Colony Act and they were ousted from the Ihata in 1982.
He contended that Muhammad Asghar etc., filed appeal which was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner on 16-2-1982. He argued that prior to it the petitioner never applied for the allotment of the Ihata. He argued that the petitioner had already illegal possession over 1/2 of Ihata No, 163 measuring 1 Kanal 9 Marlas 4 Sarsais. He argued that 1/3rd of Ihata No, 143 measuring 1 Kanal 12 Marlas 3 Sarsais, the father of the petitioner was holding in his possession who has since died and the petitioner was occupying it. He contended that Ghulam Nabi and Ali Ahmad brothers of the petitioners had abandoned the Chak and permanently settled in Faisalabad. He contended that Ali Ahmad and Ghulam Nabi had got allotted a plot in Gulistan Colony Faisalabad. He contended that the petitioner was not a `Mueen' but was working on a `B h a tta '. He argued that the father of the respondent had a plot of only 8 Marlas and worked as labour for the service of the Zamindars of the Chak. He argued that the respondents were married persons having 20/25 family members and could not be accommodated in an Ihata of 8 Marlas and were eligible for the allotment of the Ihata. He argued that Muhammad Asghar etc., who were holding illegal possession over the Ihata were using the petitioner for their own benefit although the petitioner was not in need of any Ihata as he was occupying sufficient Ihata. He argued that after the remand of the case by the Additional Commissioner and with reference to the order of this Court whereby the revision of the petitioner was remanded vide order dated 10-3-1983, the Ahl-e-Commission was appointed with the consent of the parties. He contended that the Ahl-e-Commission reported that the construction over the Ihata was not of the petitioner but was of other persons and the petitioner never objected on this report. He contended that the petitioner had given some portion out of his occupied Ihata No, 163 to one Fazal Karim for residence. He contended that the Additional Commissioner passed a proper order and the revision petition be dismissed.
4. I have considered the arguments of the parties and perused the record of the case. The AC/Collector there., times allotted the Ihata to the petitioner and every time in appeal, the case was remanded by the appellate Court for fresh decision. The petitioner was working at the brick Kiln and as such could not be treated to be the serving 'queen. His brother who was the serving Mueen was allotted 14M-4S out of Ihata No, 163 measuring 1K-9 M-4S. The allotment of 14M-4S of Ihata was more than sufficient for him. The petitioner was occupying 1/3rd of lhata No, 143 measuring 1K 12M-3S which his father had purchased and was now dead. The other two brothers of the petitioner have obtained allotment of Plot No, 185-K, situated in Gulistan Colony Faisalabad and its possession was delivered to them on 8-1-1977. The Additional Commissioner after considering all the facts of the case has passed a proper order after obtaining a spot verification and report from the Magistrate worked as Ahl-e-Commission and this report was not challenged by the petitioner. I do not see any force in the revision petition which is hereby rejected. Announced.