' This is a revision petition against the order dated 23-9-1991, passed by the Additional Commissioner (Cons.), Multan Division, Multan, whereby he accepted the appeal of the respondent.
2. The facts are that the CA./Collector, Vehari, vide his orders dated 3-4-1991 allotted Ihata Nos.286 and 287 measuring 10 Marlas, situated in Chak No,247/EB., Tehsil Burewala to the petitioner. The respondent filed an appeal before the Additional .Commissioner (Cons.), Multan Division, who accepted the same vide his orders dated 23-9-1991. Hence this revision petition.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner had applied for Ihata. The Collector allotted Ihata Nos.286 and 287 measuring 5 Marlas each to him. The respondent went in appeal before the Additional Commissioner (Cons.), who accepted the same on 23-9-1991 to the extent that Ihata No,286 measuring 5 Marlas was allotted to the petitioner while No,287 was allotted to the respondent. He stated that the plea of the respondent that he was not heard should not be given any weight because he had no locus standi to be heard. He further stated that it was incorrect that the respondent was in possession. He further stated that the land of the petitioner was more i.e, 7 Kanals. He further stated that the father of the petitioner owned 19 Marlas but he had other brothers also. He further stated that the respondent's father had got an Ihata measuring about 1 Kanal. He further stated that while the agricultural land of the father of the respondent had been transferred in the name of the respondent but he had not got the Ihata transferred in his name.
5. The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand stated that the possession of the respondent had been admitted even by the A.C./Collector. He further stated that the respondent had applied for the said Ihata on 3-1-1990, while the allotment had been made on 3-4-1991, without considering his case.
6. I have given my careful thought to the arguments advanced on both sides and also perused the record and the impugned orders.
7. The factual position is that Ihata No,287 was in possession of the respondent at the time when it was allotted to the petitioner. It was improper on the part of the Collector to allot two Ihata to the same land-owner of the Chak. Further, both the Ihata were allotted to the petitioner without hearing the respondent.
8. In view of the above, Additional Commissioner (Cons) vide his, orders, dated 23-9-1991 has correctly decided that while Ihata No,286 may remain allotted to the petitioner, Ihata No,287 may be allotted to the respondent. I, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the impugned orders which are upheld and the revision is dismissed.