' This is a revision petition against the order of Additional Commissioner (Revenue), dated 27-5- 1986, whereby he dismissed the appeal of the petitioners against the order of Colony Assistant/Collector, Sahiwal (now Okara). The latte had allotted shop site No,48 measuring 8 marlas situated in Chak No,2/1-1L Tehsil and District Okara to the respondent.
2. The facts of the case are that the respondent applied for the allotment of the disputed Ihata. The CA/Collector allotted the same to him on rental basis at Rs,12 per marla per annum for running a shop. The petitioners appealed again the order but it was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner (Consolitution) Lahore. Hence this revision petition.
3. I have heard the parties through their counsel. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the disputed Ihata was allotted to one Mohammad Ibrahim since 1970, who transferred it to the petitioners in 1972 without any construction. He contended that the petitioners therearfter constructed a house in the Ihata and also moved application in 1972 for the transfer of the Ihata in their favour, but no action was taken thereon as at that time Government banned allotments. He contended that the respondent while applying for the allotment of the Ihata in the year 1980 concealed the fact that the petitioners were in possession of the Ihata and it was not vacant. He argued that according to the policy the petitioners who were in possession of the disputed shop site had a preferential right of allotment over the respondent. He also alleged that no proclamation for the allotment of the Ihata had been made by the Collector before allotting it to the respondent, and that the respondent has obtained the allotment for residential purpose and not for a shop.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent contended that the petitioners had not applied for the allotment of the Ihata and had no locus standi to dispute the impugned order. He contended that the allotment of Ibrahim had been cancelled in 1974, whereafter the Ihata had been allotted to the respondent on 10-11-1980. Action against the petitioners (for ejectment) under section 32/34 of Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912 was taken by the Collector on 13-2-1982.
5. The patwari stated that allotment in favour of Ibrahim had since been cancelled by the Collector on 4-9-1974 and its implementation was made vide Mutation No, 481. Consequently in the Register Haqdaran Zamin 1976-77 it was recorded as baqia. He confirmed that it was allotted to the respondent by the Collector on 10-11-1980.
6. I have considered the arguments and perused the record. The record does not show the petitioner to be in possession of the Ihata at the time of its allotment to the respondent. Allotment of Ihatas was stopped for a few months only. The petitioner could have applied for the allotment at any time between 1972 when he allegedly took over from Ibrahim in 1980. There is no force in the revision petition which is hereby rejected.