1. ' The report of the Department has been perused. The learned counsel for the petitioners, after perusing the record, states that he has no grievance, as far as the respondent Muhammad Sharif is concerned.
2. ' The brief facts of the case are that the land allotted to Muhammad Sharif was in illicit cultivation of the petitioner but subsequent therto, the petitioner was allotted land under Grow More Food Scheme. The Department then imposed Tawan upon the petitioner for illicit cultivation of the land allotted to Muhammad Sharif.
3. ' The learned counsel for the petitioner states that his client would be satisfied if it is observed that the petitioner should be accommodated to the extent of his full allotment which is less by 8 Kanals and 18 Marlas The report also affirms that the petitioner's allotment falls short by such area.
4. In this view of the circumstances I would direct the respondent No,1 to consider the case of the petitioner and if the land is available then 8 Kanals and 18 Marlas be allotted to the petitioner.
5. However, it is clarified that such area will not be sliced away from the allotment of the respondent Muhammad Sharif.
6. ' It is urged that imposition of Tawan to the extent of forty times is excessive and, therefore, needs reconsideration. It has now been argued that under the amendment, the maximum limit has been fixed at Rs,5,000 and such amendment has not been brought into my notice but, however, I would observe that the petitioner shall invoke the jurisdiction of the District Collector again for the reconsideration of the imposition of Tawan.
7. ' With these observations, this petition stands disposed of.