Asad Ali Shah Member.-This is a revision petition against the order of Commissioner. Multan dated 16-7-1984, whereby he accepted the appeal of the respondents and set aside the order of D C/Collector, Multan dated 27-4-1983. The latter bad allotted Killa No. 20, 2 Min Sq-. No. 27 and 22 to 25 in Sqr. No. 29 measuring 33K-14M, situated in Chak No. 83/IS-L to the petitioner under Islamabad Outsees Scheme in exchange of Khasra No. 26/2. 3, 3, 4, 7, 12 measuring 3K-7M and had directed that the Board of Revenue be requested to modify the confirmation of sale of area originally allotted to the petitioner as a part of that area which had already been sold by open auction.
2. The facts of the case are that killa Nos. 22 to 25 (Sqr. No. 23) and Killa Nos. 2/3, 3, 4, 7, 13 (Sqr No 26). Killa Nos.4/, 19, 21, 22,23/1 (Sqr. No 27) measuring 100K-14M, situated in Chak No 83/ 5L, were Allotted to Aziz-ur-Rehman, petitioner under the Islamabad Outsees Scheme, and the sale was confirmed on 16-4- 9 8 and conveyance deed in his favour executed and registered on 17-3-1961.
At the time of attestation of mutation by the Revenue Officer it was noticed that Killa N^s. 2/ 3, 3.4. 7, 12 of Sqr No 6 had already been sold in favour of Muhammad Nawas etc and conveyance deed had been executed and registered on 14-2-1979. Azizur Rehman petitioner then applied for alternate allotment of Killa No, 20, 23 min (Sqr. No. 27) and 23 to 25 (Sqr, No. 29). Which were already in the schedule of Islamabad Oustee Scheme. Out of this Killa No. 23 to 25 (Sqr No 29) had been lea ed out to Muhammad Siddique Khan and Umar Khan respondents under Temporary Cultivation Scheme from Kharif 1976 to Rabi 1983 and Killa No. 2 (Sqr. No. 27) to Abdul Sattar respondent from Kharif 1980 to Rabi 1985. The D C/ Collector allotted this area to Azizur Rehman and directed the respondents to surrender the possession within 30 days. Aggrieved by the order, the respondents filed an appeal before the Commissioner, who accepted the same and held that the petitioner was not entitled for alternate allotment at this belated stage. Hence this revision petition.
3. Muhammad Nawaz etc. To whom Killa Nos. 2/3, 3, 4, 7, 12 (Sqr. No, .6) measuring 34K-7M had already been sold in open auction and had acquired proprietary rights were considered to be necessary party and were also called.
4. I have heard the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that originally he was allotted 100 Kanals 14 Marlas of land under Islamabad Scheme in 1969 and conveyance deed was executed in his favour in 198l, he was therefore entitled for alternate allotment instead for the area short delivered. He argued that the area allotted to him as alternate allotment was included in the schedule of Islamabad Outsees Scheme and was rightly allotted by the D C/Collector. If this had been leased out under temporary cultivation scheme it did nt alter the status of the impugned land. H - argued that the petitioner had never applied on 29-10-197c for the execution of the conveyance deed of 8 acres only as was held by the Commissioner.
5. The learned counsel for Muhammad Nawaz etc. Contended that Killa Nos. 2/3, 3, 4, 7, l2 (Sqr. No. 26) along with other land was sold out in open auction to Muhammad Nawaz etc. In year 1994. They deposited the full price of land and conveyance deed had been executes in their favour on 15-1- 1979 and they still hold its possession. He argued that allotment to Aziz-ur-Rehman was made in 1964 much after the sale of land to Muhammad Nawaz etc. And thus the sale was valid.
6. Counsel for Muhammad Siddique respondents contended that Killa Nos. 20. 23 (Sq No. 27) and Killa No 23 to 25 (Sqr. No. 29) was leased out to them under 5 years lease scheme which was to expire in Rabi 1985. He argued that the petitioner had applied in 1^83 for the exchange of area and his application was t a belated stage when be had presumably obtained the conveyance deed. He argued that when once proprietary rights were allowed to petitioner of Sqr. No. .6, 3, 4, 7. 12 it could not be changed with the land under there lease. He argued that proprietary rights of this area had been allowed to them which now could not be ravoked.
7. The Colony Clerk stated that the area stood included in the schedule of Islamabad Oustee Scheme since 2 -2- 965. He stated that Muhammad Siddique and Umar Khan had been declared Rentitled to acquire proprietary rights of Sqr. No. 29/22 to 25, by the D C/Collector on 8-10-1984, but conveyance deed has not yet been registered.
8. I have considered the arguments and perused the record of the case. It is on record that conveyance deed of Killa Nos. 3/3, 3, 4 7, 13 (Sq. No. 26) had been executed in favour of the petitioner on 12-3-1981 whereas the conveyance deed of the same land had already been executed in favour of Muhammad Nawaz etc on 15-1-1979, The petitioner was thus entitled for alternate allotment. The disputed land was included in the Islamabad Schedule The D C/Collector had therefore passed a proper order on 7-4-1 83 to allot it to the petitioner as alternate land in lieu of double sold land. This order of the D C/Collector dated 27-4-1983 is up-held. The District Collector was not competent to grant proprietary rights of land already included in the Islamabad Schedule. It appears that the concerned officials did not disclose the correct position to the D C/Collector while obtaining orders dated 8-10-1384 to allow proprietary rights to Siddique etc. An enquiry in this respect be conducted by the D C/Collector and responsible officials taken to task.
The revision petition is thus accepted. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.