' This is a revision petition against the order of Additional Commissioner (Cons.), Multan, dated 4-9- 1984 whereby he accepted the appeal of the respondents Observing that the original allotment made in favour of the petitioner under Grow More Food Scheme was not available on the file and he also could not produce any proof of allotment made in his favour and thus the alternate allotment made in his favour was wrong and set aside the order of DC/Collector, Vehari, dated 26- 8-981, vide which he had made alternate allotment of Rect. Rs, 22'5, 6, 7, 12 to 15, 17, 18, 24 Rect. Rs, 18/21 min, Rect. Rs, 19/23 to 25 situated in Chak Rs, 555/EB and Rect. Rs, 112 10 situated in Chak Rs, 58/KB measuring 100 Kanals 4 Marlas to the petitioner under Grow More Food Scheme but upheld the order of AC/Collector, Vehari, dated 20-1-1982 vide which he held the respondents eligible to obtain proprietary rights of Rect. Rs, 22/1 to 5, 7, to 10, 12 to 15, 17, 18, 24 situated in Chak Rs, 555/EB observing that they had been in cultivating possession of land since 1980 and had paid the Tawan and according to para. 480 of Colony Manual can be treated as tenants.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length and gone through the grounds of revision. He contended that be fulfilled the conditions of lease. He contended that the land was cancelled from his name in year 1960 under the General order of the Government and was allotted to the Mangla Dam Oustees. He contended that after the promulgation of policy of Government to allow alternate allotment under Grow More Food Scheme to those whose allotments were cancelled to accommodate the allottees of Permanent Scheme he applied in 1974 for alternate allotment. He contended that after due enquiry he was held eligible to obtain alternate allotment.
He argued that he was allotted land in Chak Rs, 44/KB which was later on cancelled on appeal by Manzoor Hussain as the land was meant for Lambardari grant and was allotted to him under Pedigree Livestock Breeding Scheme. He contended that the disputed land was allotted to him on 26-8-1981. He contended that on appeal of the respondents the Commissioner restored their allotment as well as the order of AC Collector, dated 20-1-1982, vide which he had allowed proprietary rights to them but set aside the order of the DC/Collector allotting the land to the petitioner. He contended that the respondents were temporary lessees of the disputed land since 1977. They had applied for proprietary rights but their application was rejected on 19-4-1980. He urged that no appeal against that order was ever filed by the respondents and they manoeuvred a bogus order, dated 20-1-1982 of the AC/Collector as the signatures of the AC/Collector were doubtful. He contended that the respondents had filed suit for declaration against the petitioner but it was dismissed for non-prosecution on 6-4-1982. He urged that the impugned orders be set aside.
3. I have considered the arguments and perused the record of the case. The copy of Register of allotment produced by the petitioner shows that the allotment of the petitioner was cancelled by the AC/Collector, Multan for violation of the conditions. The petitioner should have filed appeal against that order. It seems that the petitioner through misrepresentation of facts obtained the order for the alternate allotment. The appellate Court has passed a proper order. There is no force in the revision petition which is hereby dismissed.