HAFEEZULLAH ISHAQ, MEMBER.- Brief facts of the case are that Ihata No.26 measuring 19 marlas 5 sarsahis situated in Chak No. 47/WB, Tehsil Vehari was reserved as Dera Deh Attiadaran for public purpose. One Bahadar Ali father of the petitioner submitted an application with the request that the category of the Ihata in question should be changed which was accepted by the District Collector, Vehari on 21.10.1987. On the same day the AC/Collector, Vehari allotted the Ihata in question to Bahadar Ali. The landowners of the check felt aggrieved and went in appeal before the Additional Commissioner (Cons:), Multan Division. He accepted the appeal on 17.2.1988 and remanded the case to the District Collector, Vehari for fresh decision. During the pendency of the remanded case, the petitioner managed to obtain the allotment of this Ihata on the basis of his possession from the AC/Collector, Vehari on 11.2.1990 under the Jinnah Abadi Scheme, followed by mutation No.139 in the name of the petitioner on 17.11.1990. Deciding the remanded case, the District Collector, Vehari vide order dated 25.3.1991 directed that the original position of the Ihata in question for the public purpose may be restored Bahadar Ali and Muhammad Shabbir being aggrieved preferred separate appeals before the Addl. Commissioner (Cons:), Multan Division, which were rejected vide impugned order dated 9.9.1991. Hence this revision petition under Section 164 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 read with Section 7 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that Ihata No.26 (19M-5S) was reserved for Girls Primary School. The category of the Ihata was changed on the application of petitioner's father in consultation with the Education Department. The petitioner had applied for allotment of this Ihata on the basis of his possession which was allotted to him on 11.2.1990 after coming into force of the Jinnah Abadi Act (III of 1986) and Sanad was also issued and necessary mutation (No. 141) was also effected in his favour on 17.11.1990. The respondent approached the DC/Collector for decision of the case earlier remanded bv the Commissioner who (D.C) decided the case ex-parte and directed ejectment of the petitioner on 25.3.1991. The petitioner's appeal before the Additional Commissioner was dismissed. No appeal was moved against the order dated 11.2.1990 which had thus attained finality. If was prayed that the revision petition may be accepted.
3. The learned counsel for the respondents maintained in rebuttal that the petitioner's father had applied for the change of category of Ihata which was accepted on 21.10.1987 and the same was allotted to the petitioner's father Bahadar Ali on the same date. The litigation ultimately went up to the Board of Revenue and on 7.3.1990 the revision petition was withdrawn. Between 18.10.1987 to 7.3.1990 the petitioner was nowhere in the picture. The petitioner was owner of 21 acres of land and had several other Ihatas. When Bahadar Ali, could not obtain allotment of Ihata in dispute, his son (petitioner) moved to get allotment of Ihata reserved for "Dera Deh Attiadaran". The Deputy Commissioner's order dated 25.3.1991 was ex parte because the petitioner had absented himself after attending the proceedings. It was challenged by both Bahadar Ali and Shabbir the present petitioner in separate appeals before the Commissioner and only Shabbir has come up in revision.
The petitioner is not a non-proprietor and hence not eligible for allotment of the Ihata under the Jinnah Abadi Scheme.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the petitioner had no land of his own. He had a separate family and he is eligible for allotment of a Ihata under the definition given in clause
(g) of-the Jinnah Abadi Act.
5. I have considered the arguments and persued the case record. From the record it appears that Ihata No. 26 was reserved as "Dera Deh Attiadaran" and not for a girls primary school as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Therefore the change of classification in consultation with the Education Department appears to be circumvention of the legal requirements. The allotment of the aforesaid Ihata on the same date by the AC/Collector to the petitioner's father Bahadar Ali i.e. On the day of passing of order by the Deputy Commissioner also smacks of collusion between the official-dom and the petitioner because the residents of the village do not seem to have been given any opportunity to agitate against the change of classification, had they so wished. The case was therefore rightly remanded by the learned Addl: Commissioner (Cons:), Multan Division, vide his order dated 17.2.1988. The submission of application in the meanwhile by the petitioner for allotment of the Ihata in dispute under the Jinnah Abadi Scheme and allotment thereunder by the AC/Collector is also irregular because firstly the Jinnah Abadis Act 1986 cannot be applied to regular Ihatas in the Colony Chaks, secondly the allotment cannot be more than 7 marlas under section 3 thereof and lastly the matter was still sub-judice before the District Collector. The impugned order dated 9.9.1991 has therefore been made on valid grounds and docs not call for any intervention. Consequently the revision petition stands dismissed with costs.
6. The order in this case was reserved which shall now be communicated to the parties.