' These three appeals which may be treated as revision have arisen out of the order dated 22-7- 1972 passed by the Land Commissioner, Bahawalpur Division, whereby the appeals preferred by the appellants against the order of the Deputy Land Commissioner, Rahimyarkhan were partly accepted. All these appeals have been filed by the Court of Wards under whose superintendence the landed property of the petitioners presently is. The grounds of appeal being similar in all the cases, they have been taken up together.
2. The alleged facts of the cases briefly are as follows:- ' Each of the three petitioners whose holding is under the superintendence ,of the Court of Wards were individually affected by M. L. R. 115 of 1972. Each petitioner filed his declaration separately claiming additional concession under sub-para. (2) of para. 8 of M. L. R. 115 on account of tube-well.
The Deputy Land Commissioner vide his order dated 22-6-1972 rejected their claims on the ground that the petitioners had failed to prove the ownership of the tube-wells although the existence of 3 tube-wells was verified at the spot. The petitioners then separately went in appeal before the Land Commissioner, Bahawalpur, who by his order dated 22-7-1972 partly accepted the appeals and allowed concession for each tube-well in proportion to their shares in the land where the tube- wells were installed.
2. Aggrieved against this order the petitioners have come up in this Court.
3. These cases were referred by me for enquiry and report to the Legal Adviser who has submitted his report dated 30.9-1972 which I have seen. I have also seen the record of the case and heard the learned counsel in detail.
4. The declared units of the 3 petitioners are as follows: {{TABLE}}
(a) Alambardar Hussain Shah ... 16,282 PIUs
(b) Noor. Ali Shah 17,313 PIUs
(c) Tanweer Hussain Shah 16,483 PIUs {{TABLE}} ' All the three of them claim, 2,000 PIUs each on the basis of the three -tube-wells. The holding has not reportedly been partitioned and so it is not possible to identify which tube-well belongs to which petitioner. The contention of the learned counsel is that all the three tube-wells were installed before 1965 during the life-time of the deceased father before the landed property come under the superintendence of the Court of Wards. The holding is still joint and it cannot therefore, be identified which tubewell is installed on the holding of which individual petitioner. The benefit of the three tube-wells is being derived jointly by all the three appellants together without demarcation of individual areas of the petitioners for separate tube-well.
6. Mr. Muhammad -Ahmad Sukhera, Manager of Court of Wards stated on S. A. Before me that these 3 tube-wells irrigated only the land of the petitioners and have nothing to do with the land of other shareholders. The entries of Khasra Girdawari confirm the statement of Manager of the Court of Wards to the extent that during Rabi 1972, the land where tube-wells are installed is shown to be under the Management of the Court of Wards.
7. In the concluding paragraph of his order the L. C. Worked out the share of the petitioners individually as 335 PIUs. Per petitioner. Later in the same paragraph he has said that each of the appellants would be entitled to the concession of 1,035 additional PIUs. Apparently, the Land Commissioner worked out the share of all the three petitioners on the assumption that each appellant would get 345 additional PIUs. Per tube-well. In three tube-wells the share of each appellant would work out to (345 x 3=) 1035 PIUs. This calculation of additional PIUs. Would be correct if the tube-wells are shared by the appellants with other shareholders of the joint Khata.
But, if as represented by the appellant and endorsed by Muhammad Ahmad Sukhera, Manager, Court of Wards, the tube-wells are owned exclusively by the appellants, the share of each appellant in a tube-well would be of the the appellants would be worked out to 2,000 additional PIUs. Each.
8. Since it is established that there are 3 tube-wells installed on the land jointly owned by the three shareholders, that there are no other claimants to the benefit of 3 tube-wells and these tube-wells are in the ownership of the appellants, according to the standing instructions issued in this regard, all the 3 shareholders would be entitled to 1/3rd share in every one of 3 tube-wells which in total would give every shareholder the benefit of additional 2000 PIUs. I consequently accept the appeal and set aside the order dated 22-7-72 of the Land Commissioner, Baha walpur Division. Every one of the 3 shareholder appellants namely Alambardar Hussain Shah, Noor Ali Shah and Tanweer Hussain Shah may be given the benefit of, additional 2000 PIUs.
' Parties may be informed accordingly.