' This is a revision petition against the order of the Commissioner Faisalabad dated 15-8-1983 whereby he dismissed the appeal of the petitioners and upheld the order of DC/Collector Jhang dated 24-10-1982 vide which he under section 19-A of the Colony Act allowed the respondent to obtain proprietary rights alongwith the petitioners, of the land allotted to Peer Bakhsh deceased in Sqr. No, 21/22 to 24 and Sqr. No, 41/3, 4 situated in Chak No, 209/JB, Tehsil Chiniot under Ejected Tenants Scheme.
2. The facts of the case are that Peer Bakhsh the father of the petitioners was allotted land under Guzara Scheme. He died and the petitioners applied under section 19-A of the Colony Act for the transfer of rights of their deceased father in their favour, which was allowed. The Patwari did not mention in the Shajra Nasab of the deceased the name of Mst. Bebo although she happened to be his daughter. The respondent applied to the DC/Collector for the review of his order dated 24-5- 1982 vide which she was ignored. The DC/Collector vide his order dated 24-10-1982 reviewed his previous order dated 24-5-1982 and under section 19-A of the Colony Act transferred the land in favour of Rehmat Ullah, Inayat sons (petitioner) Mst. Bebo alias Bibi daughter (respondent).
Aggrieved by this order the petitioners filed appeal before the Commissioner on the ground that the name of the respondent was included alongwith the name of Peer Bakhsh allottee deceased predecessor-in-interest of the parties as she was married at that time and was living with her husband. The counsel for the respondent had contended that she was daughter of Peer Bakhsh deceased and according to Shariat Act was entitled to inherit his property. The Commissioner agreeing with the arguments of the respondent rejected the appeal of the petitioners. Hence this revision petition.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and gone through the grounds of revision. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that Peer Bakhsh their father was allotted 5A-2K-5M of land under Guzara Scheme and had been in its cultivating possession. He contended that the allotment was made one Killa per head for those family members who were residing with the allottee. He contended that the respondents, though the sister of the petitioners, was married at that time and was not included in the allotment as a member. He contended that her name was entered into the allotment of her husband Muhammad who had also obtained allotment of 5A-1K-2M of land under Guzara Scheme. He contended that their father died in year 1975, when he had not yet obtained the proprietary rights of the land and the petitioners thereafter remained in cultivating possession of the land. He contended that the land was rightly transferred in their favour by the DC/Collector vide his order dated 24-5-1982 and they were allowed the proprietary rights and they deposited the requisite amount on 24-5-1982. He contended that the respondent filed time-barred review application without attaching any application for condo nation of delay but the DC/Collector misappreciated the facts and also did not consider the objection of limitation raised by the petitioners and passed an improper order to review his previous order and to include the respondent in the allotment. He argued that the petitioners were allowed the proprietary rights under section 30 of the Colony Act on the basis of their cultivating possession of the land after the death of their father but the lower Court did not appreciate this aspect of the case. He contended that their father died in 1975 and they after 5 years of his death applied for the grant of proprietary rights after fulfilling the legal formalities and it was misconceived that they also included the respondent for the proprietary rights. In fact they did not conceal that the respondent was their sister but she had a separate allotment with her husband and thus was not entitled for proprietary rights of the disputed land. He urged that the impugned order be set aside.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent contended that the father of the parties had become eligible to obtain proprietary rights in year 1960 before his death and as such the respondent was also entitled to obtain her share out of land allotted to her father.
5. I have considered the arguments and perused the record of the case. Peer Bakhsh father of the parties died in year 1975 before obtaining the proprietary rights of the land which was with him purely on Guzara basis. The question of inheritance by legal heirs did not therefore arise at this stage. Only the rights were to be transferred and these could be done only to those who were in cultivating possession. The respondent was included in the family of her husband and had obtained separate allotment. The lease rights are therefore allowed in favour of the petitioners as earlier decided by the A. C. Vide his order dated 24-5-1982 and the impugned orders of the Commissioner dated 15-8-1983 and of the D. C. Dated 24-10-1982 are set aside.