These are two revision petitions against, separate orders of the Additional Commissioner (Revenue) Sargodha dated 29-9-1987, whereby he dismissed the separate appeals of the petitioners against orders of District Collector Sargodha dated 16-8-1987. The lattcr had reviewed his previous order dated 26-7-1987 allotting anufi al:atas No.141 and 142 situated in Chak No.43 Shamali, Tehsil and District Sargodha. Since facts are similar these will be decided through a single order.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners applied to the D.C./Collector that amui ahatas No.140, 141 and No.142, 143 in chak No.43 Shainali ahata were allotted to them for the purpose of residences and shop and that they be allowed P.Rs. Of these ahatas. The cases were examined by the D.C./Collector and it transpired that the A.C./Collector Sargodha on 4-8-1979 had allotted the impugned ahatas as shops at a rent of Rs.6 per marla per Annum. In August, 1972 Commissioner Sargodha inspected the office of Deputy Commissioner Sargodha and observed that Chak No.43 Shamali being situated within the prohibited zone approval for rent of the ahata had to be obtained from the Commissioner as per policy letter No.2106-69/1783-CLIV dated 13-6-1970 issued by the Board of Revenue. Further that as per letter No.5247-49 CA. Dated 25-3-1969, issued by the Commissioner change of the category of the ahata (from arruri to shop) was to be allowed by the District Collector. It was further observed that there was overwriting in the order of the A.C./Collector dated 4-3-1971 in respect of rent from Rs.6.00 to Rs.2.00. The Commissioner therefore directed that the omission pointed out be rectified. Consequently the D.C./Collector Sargodha vide letter No.1240/SC, dated 4-10-72 requested the Commissioner to allow review of the order of A.C./Collector dated 4-8-1971. Permission was granted on 2-12-1972 whereafter the D.C./Collector took up the case and observed that the chak was within the prohibited zone and only 5 marlas arruri ahata could be allotted but these ahatas had been allotted for shops since 1971. He therefore allotted ahata No.141 to Rab Nawaz Khan and ahata No.142 to Muhammad Nawaz Khan as shop site at Rs.12.00 per marla per annum, but refused to allow P.R. And directed to refer the case for the change of category to the Board of Revenue. The A.C./Collector moved the D.C./Collector on 8-8- 1987 for the review of his order dated 26-7-1987 on the ground that arruri ahatas could not be allotted as shop sites. The D.C./Collector therefore reviewed his previous order dated 26-7-1987 and directed that the Board of Revenue be approached for guidance. Aggrieved by the order the petitioners filed appeals before the Additional Commissioner who did not see any force and rejected these. Hence these revisions.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners at length and seen the record. He argued that ahatas No.140, 141 were allotted to Rab Nawaz and Nos. 142, 143 to Muhammad Nawaz in 1971 and it was they themselves who had approached the Collector for grant of P.R. The aliatas were clearly allotted to the petitioners for residence-cum-shop purpose. If the allotments were defective the matter could be rectified specially when even unauthorised occupants were now being held entitled to grant of P.R. The petitioners were ready to pay the price plus conversion charges as assessed under the rules. Any change would do irreparable harm to petitioners who had made pacca construction at site.
4.I have considered the arguments. The petitioners had applied in 1971 for the allotment of the impugned ahatas for shop-cum=residence purpose. The aliatas at that time were reserved for amiri and the A.C./Collector had changed the category to shop sites only and allotted these to the petitioners. The irregularity came to notice during the inspection of the Commissioner in 1972 and he rightly observed that A.C./Collector was not competent to change the category of the ahatas and that as per Board of Revenue memo No. 210-69/1983 LLIV dated 13-9-1970, the approval for the rent of the ahatas within the prohibited zone was to be obtained from the Commissioner. The above orders are legally quite valid but the fact remains that the petitioners are in possession of the ahatas since 1971 and claim to have made pacca constructions there. The Board of Revenue on the executive side has already asked the Deputy Commissioner A Sargodha to carry out survey of such ahatas and report whether all ahatas for amiri are still needed in the prohibited zone and if not proposal for the utilization should be made and got approved. No final proposal has yet been put up by the Commissioner/D.C. Sargodha and even no proposal for these particular aliatas has been made as mentioned in the order dated 26-7-1987 by the D.C./Collector Sargodha.
5. In the above circumstances, I feel that the impugned orders of the D.C./Collector were unrealistic. It is obvious that amui aliatas are no longer required in chaks which have become physically urban in character. The change of category to shop/residence is therefore allowed in this case. The petitioners are eligible to purchase the same through sale by private treaty/at market rate prevailing on the date of this order to be assessed by the District assessment committee plus 10% surcharge for sale by private treaty and obtaining P.R. Thereafter according to rules.