' Brief facts of the case as stated are that land comprising Khasra Nos.14/11-12-13-18-19 to 23 measuring 8 Acres 7 Kanals situated in Chak No,12/KB, Tehsil Arifwala (now Pakpattan) was leased out to one Abbas- son of Ghulam Farid Khan under the Temporary Cultivation Scheme from Kharif 1975 to Rabi 1980. Since the said lessee was ineligible to acquire proprietary rights of the leased area, Manzoor Ahmad (respondent No,2) applied for the grant of proprietary rights of Khasra Nos.14/18/2-20 measuring 19 Kanals 11 Marlas as a sub-tenant under para. 13(4) of Board of Revenue's Scheme dated 3-9-1979, but this request was rejected vide District Collector, Sahiwal's order dated 5-1-1982. The respondent filed an appeal before the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), Multan Division, which was accepted and the case was remanded to District Collector, Sahiwal. In the meantime, the land in question was leased out to Wall Muhammad etc. By open auction for a period of 5 years with effect from Kharif 1984 to Rabi, 1989. This auction was challenged before the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), Multan who accepted the appeal on 11-12-1984 with the observation that the land in question should be re-auctioned after wide publicity. Thereafter, Manzoor Ahmad (respondent) again applied to District Collector, Sahiwal for grant of proprietary rights under para. 13(4) of Board of Revenues Notification No,3215-39-79/73-C- II dated 3-9-1979. The District Collector, Sahiwal vide his order, dated 29-4-1985 again rejected the request of the respondent on the ground that the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), Multan Division had already ordered that the impugned land be reauctioned. Man7oor Ahmad/respondent challenged this order before the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), Multan Division, who vide order dated 11-2-1986 again remanded the case to District Collector, Sahiwal, for fresh decision after hearing the parties. During the pendency of the remanded case, the inhabitants of the Chak requested the District Collector, Sahiwal to reserve the land in question for public purposes. The District Collector, Sahiwal vide order dated 10-12-1989 ignored the respondent's request for grant of proprietary rights and instead ordered the Colony Assistant, Pakpattan to chalk out proposals for reservation of the land for the purposes of graveyard, School dispensary etc. This order was challenged in appeal before the Commissioner, Multan Division, Multan who vide order, dated 23-1-1991 was remanded the case with direction that the District Collector, Sahiwal will determine whether or not the respondent/Manzoor Ahmad is eligible/entitled for grant of proprietary rights. He further directed that it would also be appropriate to consider the possibility of meeting the genuine demands of the public while simultaneously allowing the appellant to acquire proprietary rights of the impugned land, because the appellant's claim is with respect of 19 Kanals 11 Marlas only, out of the total 54 Kanals and 11 Marlas. The District Collector vide order dated 2-3- 1992 declared respondent eligible for grant of proprietary rights under Category IV of para. 13(4) of the Scheme issued vide Notification dated 3-9-1979 by granting proprietary rights equal to 19 Kanals 11 Marlas to him comprising Khasra Nos.14/18/2-19-20 and also earmarked for public purposes total area of 35 Kanals 6 Marlas comprising Khasra Nos.14/21-22-23 and 11-12. The District Collector rejected the petitioner's request for reservation of the impugned area for public purpose.
The petitioner went in appeal against the said order dated 2-3-1992 before the Commissioner, Multan Division, Multan, who vide impugned order dated 4-5-1992 dismissed the appeal in limine on the grounds that genuine demand of the inhabitants of Chak No,12/KB, Tehsil and District Pakpattan stands fulfilled. Hence this revision petition under section 164 of the land Revenue Act, 1967 read with section 7 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner responding to preliminary objection by the learned counsel of respondent No,2, contended that under the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act various schemes were framed by the Government for allotment of State land or Ihatas to the people and competition is always keen which explains the locus standi of the petitioner in the instant case. In such cases Order I, rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code needs to be followed because the presence of any person not party to a case before the Court may be necessary to factually and correctly adjudicate upon the matter under consideration. In Colony matters some persons manage to acquire State land through fraud and mispresentation in connivance with the revenue staff and such fraud and misrepresentation cannot be exposed unless persons like the petitioner come forward and bring the misdeeds to light. The addition of subsection (2) to section 30 of Colonization of Government. Lands Act recently through an amendment supports this view.
Continuing the learned counsel maintained that the respondents obtained the suit land from one Muhammad Abbas without prior approval of the Collector under section 19 of the Act ibid and applied for grant of proprietary rights to the Deputy Commissioner but his prayer was rejected. His prayer was again rejected on 21-4-1985 after the case has been remanded by the Commissioner.
The case was again remanded and the same area was given by the Collector on 2-3-1992. The area reserved for dispansary/school etc. Is not suitable because people have constructed houses thereon and they cannot be dislodged. The . Respondent No,2 could have been accommodated in Khasras Nos.14/18-19-20 etc. The respondent is not eligible for grant of proprietary rights under notification dated 3-9-1979 as the area given to him falls in the Chiragah and cannot be given as such. The respondent No,2 is either illegal occupant or sublessee and hence not eligible under aforesaid notification. It was prayed that the revision petition may be accepted and the impugned orders set aside.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent No,2 maintained in rebuttal that the petitioner has no locus standi because he is not the representative of the residents of the village in so far he does not hold any power of attorney on their behalf. He is also not an aggrieved person. He has assailed the concurrent findings of the two Courts below. Para. 7 of the comprehensive order passed by the District Collector on 2-3-1992 shows that the land for school, graveyard, dispensary, Basic Health Centre and other public buildings has been reserved on public demand. The respondent No,2 has also paid the price of the land. The petitioner is unnecessarily agitating for reservation of some other land in which he is not supported by the villagers.
4. I have considered the arguments and perused the case record. Regarding the locus standi of the petitioner I am inclined to agree with the views of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in Colony matters the shoddy transactions taking place between the lower Revenue staff and the interested parties can only be scrutinized with the help of persons like the present petitioner who have some knowledge thereof and come forward to help the State not only to protect its interests but also the rights of the people. Without exposing the misdeeds of such persons and of lower revenue hierarchy, the matter will remain buried for ever in the graveyard of files and papers in various offices and it will not be possible to take corrective action.
5. The record produced by the representative of the Deputy Commissioner was scrutinized rather carefully by me. The DC/Collector had decided the case in consultation with the villagers and in the presence of the parties after a site visit on 12-11-1991. Earlier he had deputed Colony Assistant, Pakpattan to visit the spot and submit a report. The Colony Assistant visited the village on 17-10- 1991, recorded the statements of the parties and village Councillor etc., and submitted his detailed report. Thus every care has been taken to consider various aspects of the genuine requirements of the villagers and to decide the matter accordingly in consultation with them. On the other hand the petitioner has not been able to show that he is supported by the villagers regarding the reservation of certain A land for public purpose. Collective good must prevail over individual interests if no rights are involved. Seen in this perspective, there is no irregularity or illegality in the concurrent findings of the two Courts below. The revision petition thus is devoid of force and is accordingly dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs in this case.