JIWAN KHAN, J.- This is a revision petition against the order dated 31.8.1988 of the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Multan Division, whereby he dismissed the revision petition against the order dated 2.6.1984 of AC/Collector Vehari.
2. The dispute is about the allotment of State land in Khasras No. 8/1, 8/2, 9, 10, 11, l2, 13, 18 to 20, 21, 22, 23 and 29 measuring 76 kanals in Chak No. 19/WB, Tehsil and District Vehari. It is claimed on behalf of legal heirs of Jan Muhammad petitioner that the impugned land was allotted to Jan .Muhammad under the Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme in 1956 and that he had been in its cultivating possession till 1984. He was therefore entitled to grant of proprietary rights. As he was denied this right, he agitated the matter before the competent forums. Ultimately Member (Colonies) vide his order 30.11.1982 remanded the case to AC/Collector with the direction to determine as to whether the exchange of Square No. 8 had taken place with Square No. 51 and whether Square No. 51 was evacuee land.
2. The leamed counsel for the petitioner contends that both the AC/Collector and the Additional Commissioner failed to address to the above cited issues. He therefore prays that the orders of both the lower Courts may be set aside and proprietary rights in the impugned land granted to the petitioner.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner places his reliance on an attested copy of Khasragirdawari pertaining to the year 1956 which shows "Jan Muhammad Mohajir under Rehabilitation Commissioner" as cultivator of the impugned land.
4. Lt is contended on behalf of the Respondents that the impugned land had been allotted to late Khushi Muhammad under Criminal Tribe Scheme and that the land in Square No. 51 was purchased by them from Mst. Naimtay allottee through a properly attested mutation No. 41, dated 10.10.1967.
5. The perusal of relevant Register Haqdaran Zamin/Khasra girdawaris for the years 1962-63 to 1988-89 brings out the following picture:
(a) The impugned land in Sq. No. 8 has all along been recorded as owned by the Provincial Government.(b) Khushi Muhammad has been recorded as a tenant whereas Jan Muhammad has been recorded as a sub-tenant under Khushi Muhammad from 1962 to 1980.(c) The land in Sq.
No.51 has been recorded as owned by the Provincial Government but having been proposed for allotment in favour of Naimtay refugee against her claim.(d) The present respondents are shown to have purchased it from her vide mutation No.41, dated 10.10.1967.
6. Record does not at all lend support to the petitioner's claim that the impugned land in Sq. No.8 was ever allotted to Jan Muhammad under Rehabilitation Scheme. His status was that of a sub- tenant. Even his sub-tenancy ceased to exist with effect from 3.1. 1980 (Rabi crop). Obviously the petitioner cannot be held to be entitled to the grant of proprietary rights in the impugned land on the basis of his cultivation under the respondents from 1962-63 to 1980-81.
7. It is however, intriguing to note that the respondents' claim about the impugned land having been allotted to Khushi Muhammad under Criminal Tribe Scheme is also not borne out from the record. The entries of the Register Haqdaran Zamin from 1962 onwards show Khushi Muhammad as a tenant. The'existing entries are as under: w*- m*> The status of the land in Sq. No. 51 is also un-certain. It is recorded as owned by the Provincial Government but at the same the, it has been shown to have been allotted to Mst. Niamtay as evacuee land against her claim. The land owned by the Provincial Government could not have been allotted to a refugee claimant.
8. The District Collector, Vehari, is advised to determine the nature of the impugned tenancy i.e. Khasras No. 8/1, 8/2, 9, 10, 11, l2, 13, 18 to 20, 21, 22, 23 and 29 as well as the existing character of the above referred land in Sq: No.51, ln case the land of Sq^No. 51 was not evacuee in character, it could not have been allotted to Mst. Niamtay and if this be the position, the mutation transferring the land from Mst. Niamtay to the respondents would have to be reviewed.
9. To the extent of determination of the exact nature of the impugned tenancy and the determination of the evacuee character of the land in Sq. No. 51, the cases is remanded to District Collector. The petitioner, however, does not have any lawful/valid claim for grant of proprietary rights in the impugned tenancy The petitioner's prayer is therefore declined. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.