' This is a revision petition against the order dated 28th June 1971 whereby the Addl. Commissioner, Bahawalpur dismissed the appeal of the petitioner.
2. On 10-11-1966, Killa No, 23 of Rectangle No, 10 situated in Chak No, 14/BC. Was reserved for graveyard. Subsequently by oversight this killa was included in the Schedule of Sale and was sold out to the respondent on 25-5-1968 through open auction. The respondent after payment of price obtained the sale-deed on 24-9-1970. The petitioners appealed against the auction of this killa. The Collector reported that the matter could not be reopened as the respondent had since obtained proprietary rights and that some other land in lieu of the disputed killa could be reserved for graveyard if necessary. The Addl. Commissioner, rejected the appeal on 28.6-1971. Hence this revision petition.
3. It was argued on behalf of the petitioners that Killa No, 23 in dispute was reserved for graveyard on 10-1-1966 and the field staff was duly informed about the reservation. The Patwari accordingly entered this killa as "Ghair Mumkin Qaberistan" during Kharif 1969 and Rabi 1970 but subsequently with the collusion of the respondent showed this killa as Banjar Qadeem. It was also shown as "Baqaya Sarkar" in the lists prepared in 1966-67 and 1967-68. It was contended that as the conveyance deed was obtained through misrepresentation and fraud, it had no valid existence in the eyes of law.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that order dated 10-11-1966 was passed by Revenue Assistant who was not competent to reserve land for the graveyard. The order is, therefore, void ab undo as only the Deputy Commissioner was empowered to make such a reservation. Further the respondent has since paid the entire amount and has become full owner.
The conveyance deed has also been executed in his favour. The Collector is, therefore, not competent to review the matter and cancel the allotment. If the petitioners have any grouse they should move the matter in a civil Court. The learned counsel cited PLD 1959 (Rev.) 167 in support of this view.
5. I have given careful consideration to these arguments. According to the report of the Collector, submitted to the Additional Commissioner the respondent has acquired proprietary rights in the disputed laud. The conveyance deed has been executed, the transaction is complete and the respondent has become full owner of the allotted land. In this view of the matter I see no merit in the revision petition which is hereby rejected.