' These two revision petitions have arisen out of the order of Additional Commissioner (Rev.), Lahore Division dated 26-11-1986 by which he accepted appeals of the respondents and set aside the orders of AC/Collector, Nankana dated 27-5-1986 and ordered that the land should remain with the respondents till the expiry of actual usufructuary period of 20 years or till the payment of redemption money. As the facts of these cases are identical and the parties are almost similar, therefore, this single order will dispose of these two revision petitions.
2. The counsel for petitioners has argued that the contention of respondents that the land was on lease with their father Sultan and others from 1948 to 1968 was absolutely wrong as no documentary proof of Revenue Record in support of it was produced by them before the Collector and neither any of the lease-holders appeared as a witness. He further argued that the land was mortgaged only for 20 years and after the expiry of this period they were not legally competent to retain the possession and moreover, the respondents had not utilized any amount to develop the land. He requested that order of learned Additional Commissioner is not sustainable and be set aside.
3. The counsel for respondents has stressed that the petitioners produced copies of mutations Nos.
194 and 195 before the learned Additional Commissioner in which they showed that the land was on lease with another party from 1946 to 1968 and they got possession after Rabi, 1968. Hence the learned Additional Commissioner had rightly held that the land would remain with the respondents till the expiry of the actual usufructuary period of 20 years or till the payment of redemption money.
4. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by both the parties and have also gone through the record. The learned Additional Commissioner has observed in the impugned order that Jagdev son of Ilyas Khan had given the land on lease for a period of 20 years from Kharif 1946 to Rabi 1968 to Najabat Khan son of Kabir Khan and Sultan Khan son of Daim Khan vide Mutations Nos.
A 194 and 195. On the basis of these mutations the learned Additional Commissioner has rightly held that the AC/Collector, Nankana had wrongly passed order, without going through the papers minutely, for the restitution of usufructuary mortgage of the land without payment of redemption money. As a result, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order of the learned Additional Commissioner, which is upheld and both the revision petitions are dismissed accordingly.