' Brief facts of the case are that Ihata No,44, Chak No,346/WB, Tehsil and District Lodhran was reserved for Dera Deh. The petitioners forcibly entered upon and took its possession illegally. An ejectment order against the petitioners was made on 1-3-1988 by AC/Collector Lodhran which was assailed before the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Multan Division who remanded the case back for fresh decision on merits. The AC/Collector, Lodhran, passed order on 4-8-1990 for ejectment of the petitioners under section 32/34 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab)
Act, 1912. Aggrieved of the above order the petitioners filed appeal before the Additional Commissioner (Cons.), Multan Division which was dismissed vide impugned order, dated 27-8- 1990. Hence this revision petition under section 164 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967 read with section 7 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the Additional Commissioner had decided the case without examining the record. The petitioners' application for allotment of Ihata and the field report thereon had been ignored. The AC/Collector had not heard the petitioners. The impugned orders were passed on the assumption that the suit property was Dera Deh, although all Dera Dehs in the Punjab have already been allotted. In this revenue estate also the Ihatas for Lambardari and Patwarkhana etc. have also been allotted. But only the petitioners have been given different treatment. The petitioners were the needy persons and have been in occupation of the Ihata for more than 12 years. The petitioners were refugees and had applied for allotment on 1- 3-1988. It was prayed that the revision petition may be accepted and the impugned order set aside.
3. A perusal of the record shows that the particular Ihata No,44 measuring 17M-2S has been reserved for Dera Bashandgan Deh. The same position has been reflected in Jamabandi Sakni, 1982-83.
4. I have considered the arguments and perused the case record. There is no force in the contention of the learned counsel that the petitioners were not heard by the AC/Collector, Lodhran in the present round of the litigation. The petitioners had in fact preferred an Appeal No,2009-A/C 1988 before the Additional Commissioner (Cons.), Multan Division against the order of the AC/Collector, Lodhran dated 1-3-1988, which was accepted and the case was remanded to the AC/Collector, Lodhran for fresh decision. Subsequently the petitioners were heard by the AC/Collector, Lodhran while making order dated 4-8-1990. It has not been shown how examination of the record in the instant case was mandatory by the Additional Commissioner (Cons.), Multan Division, while making the impugned order because there is no such requirement under section 161 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 or the subsidiary legislation thereunder. The petitioners could have produced certified copies of the documents before that Court, if they had so chosen.
Ihata No,44 is admittedly reserved for a public purpose and could not have been brought into individual use for residential purpose without changing its category which does not seem to have been done. The Revenue Officers are required to consider the reports of the field staff but they are not bound by such reports because they have to decide each case on its own merits. Although there may be instances in this village where some other Ihatas i.e. Lambardar and School teacher have been converted to individual use but present Ihata was for a public purpose albeit collective use of the village residents. If similar Ihatas have been converted elsewhere, it is sufficient to observe that one wrong cannot be justified by another mistake or wrong. Two wrongs do not make a right. It is necessary for Revenue Officers, while converting Ihatas reserved for public purpose to some other use, to record the statements of the residents of the villagers concerned after necessary publicity. The best judge of use of such Ihatas are the public themselves. Ordinarily, the category of such Ihatas should not be changed because in due course due to increase in population more schools, dispensaries and community centres etc., will be required. The argument of being a refugee is fallacious at this stage as petitioner who seems to have been born in Pakistan, cannot take this plea to encroach upon the suit property in the year 1988. He can apply for allotment of another Ihata under the 7 Marla or similar Scheme if he needs space for a house. He has merely constructed two Katcha rooms on the Ihata No,44 which he can easily shift elsewhere.
5. The upshot of the foregoing discussion is that there is no force in the revision petition which is dismissed accordingly.
6. The order in this case was reserved which shall now be communicated to the parties.