IMTIAZ MASRUR, MEMBER.- These are two revision petitions against the orders dated 2.2.1992, of the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Lahore Division, whereby the appeals of the petitioners were dismissed.
2. The facts are that the Assistant Commissioner/Collector, vide order dated 23.9.1991, allotted Ihata No. 13, measuring 1 Kanal, 14 Marlas situated 18/D, Tehsil Depalpur, Distirct Okara, to Noor Ahmad, Rehmat Ali and Muhammad Yousaf. The petitioners filed appeals before the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Lahore Division, who, vide order dated 2.2.1992, dismissed the same.
Hence these revision petitions.
3. I have heard the learned counsels for the petitioners and the respondents.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners stated that the petitioners had applied for Ihata No. 1.3, measuring 1K-14M on 5.5.1988 while the respondents applied on 5.11.1988. He stated that the Collector, in the absence of the petitioners, allotted 10 marlas each to the respondents on 12.12.1988.
The Additional Commissioner (Revenue) accepted the appeals and remanded the cases on 25.6.1989. Revision petitions were filed in the Court of the learned Member, Board of Revenue, which were dismissed on 16.11.1989 and orders of remand were upheld. He further stated that Noor Muhammad respondent was not in possession as was evident from the orders passed by the learned Member, Board of Revenue, which had attained finality. He further stated that the Collector, without visiting the site, upheld his previous orders. He stated that the Collector had given the Ihata to the respondents on the basis of possession, which was factually incorrect. He stated that Noor Ahmad, respondent and his son had 5 and 7 marlas allotted to them. He stated that the petitioners had no other Ihata, had a large family and were eligible for the allotment of the said Ihata.
5. The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, statd that the position of family members, number of cattle head and the land owned by the petitioners and the respondents was as under:- ((Table Started))Family Cattle Land members heads. Owned.
Shah Muhammad petitioner (previously owned 9\ marlas Ihata.) Noor Ahmad respondent Shafi Muhammad Acre petitioner (previously owned 9h marlas Ihata.)
Rehmat Ali, respondent (previously owned 6 marlas Ihata.)
Yousaf, respondent (7 Sarsahi Ihata plus 3 marlas Ihata already owned.)((Table End))
He stated that as was evident from the above table the respondents had more family members and more head of cattle. The petitioners had more Ihata at then the respondents. He further staled that the Assistant Commissioner went to the site and confirmed the facts himself. He stated that the respondents were in possession of the Ihata at for the last 3/4 years. He further stated that the Assistant Commissioner had allotted the Ihatas on payment of full cost of land plus penalty.
6. The representative of the State was also heard who stated that the Assistant Commissioner had himself gone to the spot and prepared the report. He further stated that the number of family members and cattle heads, as stated by the learned counsel for the respondents, was factually correct.
7. I have given my careful thought to the arguments produced on both sides and perused the record.
8. It has been observed that the Collector had passed the orders after visiting the site and after taking into consideration all facts of the case. He did so in pursuance of the orders of the then Member, Board of Revenue and no violation of the orders had been made. The Additional Commissioner has also rightly upheld the orders of the Collector vide impugned orders dated 2.2.1992. Since no irregularity of illegality has been committed, the concurrent findings of the Courts below are. Upheld and the revision.