S.N. NASIM, CHIEF LAND COMMISSIONER.- This order will dispose of the above-noted two connected revision-petitions (ROR Nos. 1930 and 1931 of 1983) as both the cases raise identical questions of law and facts.
2. The dispute in this case relates to the allotment of land measuring 40 kanals, 1 maria comprised in killa Nos. I6, 17,18 and 19/1 of Sq. No. 20 and killa No. 20 of Sq. No. 45 of revenue state Tehsil Chiniot, District Jhang under the provisions of Land Reforms Act, 1977. The claim of. The petitioner is that they being sitting tenants of the land since 1971 including the crucial harvests of Kharif and Rabi 1976 were entitled to the grant of the land in question but the Deputy Land Commissioner by his order dated 22.4.1981 confirmed it in favour of Sultan respondent. Similarly in the other connected case against Ghulam Muhammad the petitioner, has raised the same issue. In that case, the land measuring 34 kanals, I6 marlas bearing Khasra Nos. 22/1, 23 to 25 of Sq. No. 20 has been allotted to Ghulam Muhammad respondent. This land has also been claimed by the petitioner on the basis of his cultivating possession thereon during the relevant harvests i.e. Kharif 1976 and Rabi 1976. Feeling aggrieved by the order of Deputy Land Commissioner dated 22.4.1981 the petitioner preferred appeals before the Land Commissioner, Faisalabad Division but these were dismissed. Now he has come up in revision before this Court.
3. After hearing the parties through their learned counsel at length and examining the record very carefully I have come to the conclusion that the petitioner could not establish his claim. A perusal of the khasra girdawari shows that there has been change-of possession of the land during different harvests and the petitioner has not been shown as a tenant during the relevant crops. The petitioner has conceded this fact but said that he has given an application to the Collector of the district for correction of entries in the khasra girdawari and requested that the proceedings in this case may be deferred till the disposal of his case on the revenue side. I do not feel inclined to accept this request as this will prolong the litigation unnecessarily and will never come to an end.
From the record I notice that the Deputy Land Commissioner has made allotment of the land in question on the basis of the reports of the revenue field staff who verified the factual position after conducting an on-the-spot inquiry with regard to the possession of the land. His order is therefore just and proper.
For these reasons I am satisfied that no injustice has been done to the petitioner and instant petitions are without merit. The result is that both the petitions for revision stand dismissed.