HAFEEZULLAH ISHAQ, MEMBER.- Brief facts of the case are that state land comprising khasras No. 45/1,2,9,10,12/1, 13/1, 18 to 23 measuring 94 kanals situated in Chak No. 183/WB, Tehsil Mailsi, District Vehari was originally allotted to one Suleman (predecessor-in-interest of the respondents) on 4.1.1959, under Cooperative Farming Scheme. Later on, the land in question was occupied by Bashir Ahmad (present petitioner). At the the of scrutiny of the eligibility by the Eligibility Committee on 25.3.1964, it was pointed out that original allottee namely Suleman had died and Bashir Ahmad was in illegal occupation of this lot since June 1961. As such, he was not eligible for the acquisition of proprietary rights. The CA/Collector, Multan vide his order dated 2.7.1969 declared Bashir Ahmad in-eligible for the acquisition of proprietary rights having been enrolled as member on 18.3.67.
Subsequently, the AC/Collector, Mailsi, vide his order dated 1.6.1974, declared Bashir Ahmad, petitioner eligible for the acquisition of proprietary rights. The District Collector, Vehari, vide his order dated 17.9.1985 granted permission for the execution of deed of conveyance in favour of Bashir Ahmad, petitioner. Mehr Din respondent No.1 moved an application on 19.2.1986 to the District Collector, Vehari, praying for the attestation of inheritance mutation in favour of legal heirs of Suleman (deceased). This application was accepted by the District Collector, vide order dated 2.5.1988 on the basis of which inheritance mutation No. 297 was attested on 29.4.1989 in favour of the legal heirs of Suleman (deceased). Aggrieved of this order, Bashir Ahmad preferred an appeal in the court of Commissioner, Multan Division, Multan, who accepted the appeal vide his order dated 28.3.1989 and remanded the case for fresh decision. The District Collector, Vehari, after re- examining the entitlement of both the parties, rejected the application of Mehr Din, respondent No. 1 with regard to attestation of inheritance mutation of Suleman (deceased) in favour of legal heirs and allowed to execute the deed of conveyance in favour of Bashir Ahmad, petitioner, vide his order dated 27.3.1991. Mehr Din, respondent No.1 lodged an appeal in the court of Additional Commissioner (Cons:), Multan Division, who vide impugned order dated 7.11.1991 accepted the appeal, set aside the impugned order dated 27.3.1991 with he direction that mutation of inheritance No.297, attested on 29.4.1989 in favour of legal heirs of Suleman deceased may be restored. Hence this revision petition under Section 7 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 read with Section 164 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967.
2. The Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the land in dispute was allotted to the petitioner under the Cooperative Farming Scheme. He applied for grant of proprietary rights and was held to be eligible therefor by the Collector and he had paid the full price thereof. Mehr Din respondent No.1 moved an application that the land in dispute was allotted to his father Suleman and therefore should be transferred to his heirs. Thereafter the Deputy Commissioner reviewed his order and directed that the mutation of inheritance of Suleman should be sanctioned. As a result of appeal by the petitioner the Commissioner remanded the case to the Collector who vide his order dated 27.3.1991 directed that the conveyance deed should be issued in favour of the petitioner.
However the respondent No.1's appeal was accepted by the Additional Commissioner vide his order dated 7.11.1991. The learned counsel contended that under the Cooperative Farming Scheme proprietary rights are given to the heirs of the original allottee. However in the present case Suleman, after obtaining the allotment, never cultivated the land and the petitioner was neither his nominee nor was related to him. The petitioner is son of Allah Bakhsh, caste Arian whereas respondent Mehr Din S/O Suleman deceased is Gujjar. Suleman never came forward to claim the land and the petitioner got the land in his own right and on his own entitlement. Mehr Din was not concerned with the land in dispute and conveyance deed cannot be given to him. Bashir Ahmad's case is independent of inheritance and therefore the impugned orders may be set aside.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent maintained in rebuttal that Suleman, predecessor-in- interest of respondent, was a allottee and member of Society and the disputed land which was under his cultivating possession. According to Section 19-A of the Colonization of Government Lands Act and PLD 1984 SC 185 the inheritance should be devolved upon Suleman's heirs. Further that the Bashir Ahmad petitioner had taken illegal possession of the land. The allotment of land was never cancelled from Suleman's name and the land was never available for fresh allotment. It was prayed that the revision petition may be dismissed.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner exercising his right of reply, with the permission of the court, pointed out that Suleman had never cultivated the land. His cultivation had not been reflected in the Khasra girdawari even for one crop and he was not given the possession of the land in dispute under section 10 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act.
((Urdu Tasts Paragraphs))
5. I have considered the arguments and perused the relevant record.
The date of death of Suleman is not clear. However, the eligibility register maintained by the Society shows that the petitioner was 'Najaiz Qabiz' in 1961 on the disputed property. Therefore Suleman must have died before that. During the long course of nearly 26 years the respondents never came forward to claim the land allotted originally to their father. The register Taqsim Arazi shows that the petitioner was given this land on 30.6.1960. However, in the remarks column is written. There is another note to the fact that: ((Urdu Taxts))
The record of rights for the year 1962-63 shows the petitioner to be allottee of this land as does the record of rights for the year 1984-85. The petitioner has been in self cultivating possession of the land throughout. His allotment was regularised and he was held to be eligible for grant of proprietary rights as far back as 1974 by the AC/Collector, Mailsi. The respondents on the other hand, have not been able to show that Suleman deceased ever got the possession of the land in dispute or had cultivated or developed it even for one crop before his death. The respondents have also not explained the reason for keeping silent for more than quarter of a century and for not challenging the illegal possession and illicit cultivation of and allotment of land in dispute to the petitioner. The petitioner had no connection with Suleman and his allotment was independent of the allotment of the Suleman deceased. In my opinion this is not a case of succession as the allotment made to the petitioner was independent of the allotment made to Suleman and he came into the possession of the land after the death of the original allottee independently. Since this is not a case of succession but of independent allotment therefore the case law cited by the learned counsel for the respondent is not applicable. The revision petition therefore succeeds, the order of the learned Additional Commissioner (Cons:), Multan Division dated 7.11.1991 is set aside whereas that of the Collector dated 27.3.1991 is restored with costs.
6. The order in this case was reserved which shall now be communicated to the parties.