' This writ petition was ordered to be heard along with W.P. No,1531 of 1986. This judgment will accordingly dispose of both the said writ petitions.
2. The dispute between the petitioner and respondent No,2 (the petitioner in the connected W.P. No, 1531 of 1986) pertains to the allotment of Ihata No,366/2 measuring 4 Marlas, 3 Sarsahis in Chak No,5/14-L, Tehsil Chichawatni, District Sahiwal. This Ihata in the first instance was allotted to the petitioner vide order, dated 21-11-1984 (Annexure A to W.P. 251 of 1986) of assistant Commissioner/Collector, Chichawanti. Feeling aggrieved respondent No,2 filed an appeal which was heard by learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Multan Division who dismissed the appeal vide order, dated 29-6-1985. Respondent No,2 then filed a revision petition which was heard by respondent No,1 who proceeded to allow the revision inasmuch as the time held that respondent No,2 was also not entitled to the allotment, vide order, dated 24-10-1985. Apparently both the parties felt aggrieved of the said order of respondent No,l. Muhammad Aslam, petitioner has filed W.P. No,251 of 1986 while Mst. Hussina Bibi has filed W.P. No,1531 of 1986.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for both the contesting parties and have gone through the copies of the orders passed by respondent No,1 as well as his subordinates I find that the claim of Mst. Hussina, respondent No,2 has been rejected on the ground that her husband has been transferred Ihata No, 366/1 measuring 4 Kanals and 5 Sarsahis and a mutation conferring proprietary rights upon him has also been attested on 23-8-1980. The claim of Muhammad Aslam, petitioner has been rejected on the ground that his father had already obtained allotment of Ihata No,98 and is in occupation of Ihata No,205 on rental basis.
4. I called upon both the learned counsel to refer to the policy or the scheme governing such allotments which spells prohibition for allotment, in the nature, stated by respondent No,1, in his impugned order. They have drawn my attention to a circular (Annexure F to W.P. No,1531/1986). I find that no such prohibition is spelt out from the said letter. Learned counsel for Mst. Hussina Bibi states that since his client is in possession (unauthorised), she is entitled to regularization of the same under para. (v) of the said letter (Annexure F). Learned counsel further states that there is no material on record whereupon the Commissioner could have formulated the opinion contained in his order, dated 29-6-1985. Conversely, learned counsel for Muhammad Aslam states with equal vehemence that there was no material even before the respondent No,1 to hold otherwise.
5. I have come to the conclusion that the learned Commissioner proceeded in the matter without a proper inquiry and the learned Member also followed the suit. Since, any one of the contesting parties, in case they from (sic) be their respective entitlement, may become entitled to the allotment of the said Ihata I feel that the said parties have not been properly dealt with by the concerned authorities. I am, therefore, left with no option but to set aside the impugned order and to declare it to be without lawful authority. Accordingly both the writ petitions are allowed and the matter is referred back to the Commissioner, Multan Division who shall either himself proceed in the matter or refer the same to Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Multan who shall make an inquiry, give the said contesting parties a chance to lead evidence in support of their respective pleas and then to give a decision as to whether any of the parties is entitled to the allotment of the said Ihata or not and pass orders accordingly. No orders as to costs.