' This is a revision petition against the order of Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Lahore dated 22-4-1986 whereby he dismissed the appeal of the petitioner against the order of AC/Collector, Okara dated 30-12-1985. The latter had allowed half of Ihata No,338, situated in Chak No,14/1-AL, Tehsil and District Okara to the respondents.
2. Facts of the case are that the respondents applied for the allotment of Ihata No,344 measuring 8M-3S in Chak No,15/1-AL. The field staff reported that the petitioners owned 19K-6M of agricultural land in the Chak and were residing in an evacuee Khata measuring 4 marlas and that Ihata No,344 for which the respondents applied was in unauthorised possession of one Nawab whose possession had already been regularized. The AC/Collector allotted one-half measuring 4 marlas sarsais of Ihata No,338 to the respondents. Aggrieved by the order the petitioner filed an appeal on the ground that he was in possession of Ihata No,338, and had also applied for its allotment, but the AC/Collector ignoring the fact that the petitioner had applied for Ihata No,338 in dispute whereas the respondents had applied for allotment of Ihata No,344 and not for Ihata No,338, had allotted the Ihata to the respondents. Additional Commissioner observed that a general proclamation had been made and due notice given to the parties and the petitioner and his brother Bashir did not attend the general assembly to pursue their case. It was also observed that even otherwise the petitioner and his brother had submitted a joint application, and when one-half Ihata No,338 was allotted to Bashir it meant acceptance of the (sic) of the appellants. He, therefore, dismissed, the appeal. Hence this revision petition.
3. I have heard the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Additional Commissioner rejected the appeal of the petitioner on the ground that half of the Ihata had been allotted to Bashir Ahmad his brother and that the application for allotment of Ihata was joint and further that by not impleading Bashir Ahmad it was a case of non-joinder of the parties. He argued that he had not challenged the allotment of Bashir Ahmad and as such it was not a case of non- joinder of parties, and the appellate Court ignored the fact that only the petitioner and his brother had applied for the allotment of the disputed Ihata and that the respondents had never applied for the petitioner's Ihata. He argued that the respondent had also challenged the allotmt of the disputed Ihata. It was alleged that the Collector wanted to-accommodate Nawab and thus passed the orders for allotting Ihata No,344 to Nawab who was a 'mueen' and giving an allotment of part of Ihata No,338 to the respondent who had never applied for it.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent conceded that he had applied for the allotment of Ihata No,344 but had been given one-half of hate No,338, but that he was content with it.
5. I have considered the arguments and perused the record of the case. It is admitted that the respondents had applied for the allotment of Ihata No,344 measuring 9M-3S but were allotted Ihata No,338 half measuring 4M-11/2S and that the petitioner hat applied alongwith his brother for the allotment of Ihata No,338 but only one-half was allotted to Bashir Ahmad while the petitioner was ignored. the circumstances of the case indicate that the learned AC/Collector had not applied his mind to the claim of the contesting parties on their merits. Since there are allegations of favouritism also, the case is remanded to the District Collector with the direction to decide it afresh after hearing the parties and considering their existing possession. The parties are directed to appear before the DC/Collector on 14-8-1988.