' This is an appeal against the order dated 2-2-1971 of the Addl. Commissioner, Bahawalpur, by which he accepted the appeal of the respondents and set aside the order dated 23-11-1970 of the A. C/Collector, Bahawalpur allotting Ahata No, 85 situated in Chak No, 54/DB, to the petitioner.
2. Brief facts are thac Ahata No, 102 was allotted to Abdul Karim appellant on 28-2-1968.
Subsequently he applied for its exchange with Ahata No, 85, Abdul Ghani and Mst. Bashiran also applied for the allotment of this Ahata. On 17-7.1968 the Collector allotted the Ahata to Abdul Karim appellant and Abdul Ghani in equal shares. Mst. Bashiran appealed against this order and the Addl.
Commissioner, vide his order dated 26-111-968 cancelled the allotment of Ahata No, 102 as well as of 85 and kept them in Government pool. Abdul Karim went in revision before the Board of Revenue which was rejected on 30-4-1969 with the observation that the appellant was at liberty to press his claim before the Collector. The appellant did not feel satisfied and went in writ to the High Court which was also rejected.
3. On 23-11-1970 the Collector allotted Ahata No, 85 to Abdul Karim, appellant. The respondents claimed that they had been residing in this Ahata for the last 24 years and therefore it should be allotted to them. On this ground they filed an appeal before the Addl. Commissioner, who accepted the same on 2-2-1971. The present appeal is against this order.
4. It has been argued on behalf of the appellant that originally he was granted Ahata No,
28. With the lapse of time his family became large and he was in genuine need of additional space for his family. It was further contended that when the appellant was allotted Ahata No, 102, nobody challenged the allotment, and it became final and conclusive. If the exchange was not allowed, the allotment of Ahata No, 102 should not have been cancelled. The respondents are not residents of the Chak nor are they tenants. Hence no Ahata could be allotted to them.
5. The learned counsel for the respondents contended that the appellant has a 2-kanal Ahata which is sufficient for his needs. On the other hand Ahata No, 85 allotted to the respondents measures only 18 marlas. They are refugees and are in occupation of this Ahata for more than ten years. In, accordance with Government instructions the Ahata in dispute has rightly been allotted to the respondents.
6. I have given careful consideration to the arguments of both the parties and have gone through the relevant instructions contained in Memo. No, 1065-70/1177-CL (IV), dated 18-4-197J. The respondents are old occupants of the disputed Ahata. They are also refugees The instructions quoted above provide that any genuine refugee who has been in continuous occupation of any Ahata for the last ten years should not be disturbed if h is otherwise entitled to retain that Ahata according to rules. The words "if he is otherwise entitled to retain that Ahata according to rules" were deleted vide Memo. No, 1866-70/96-CL (IV), dated 12-1-1971. In view of these instructions it is immaterial if the respondents are not tenants in the Chak. They are admittedly refugees and old occupants of the Ahata in dispute. J, therefore, see no ground to interfere with the impugned order and reject the appeal.