' This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 15-9-76 of the Addl. Commissioner (Rev.), Multan, by which he rejected the appeal of the petitioners from the order dated 26-8-74 of the Colony Assistant/ Collector, Sahiwal, allotting the Ahata in dispute to Mohammad Sated respondent.
2. Brief facts are that the petitioners claimed possession over Ahata No, 279 (10 marks) situated in Chak No, 120/9L, Tehsil Sahiwal since 1947, which was allotted to Mohammad Saeed respondent No, 1 by the order dated 26-8-74 of the Colony Assistant/Collector, Sahiwal on the ground that Amir petitioner who was in occupation of the Abate had no objection to its allotment to Mohammad Saeed. The petitioners went up in appeal against this order which was rejected on 15.9-76 by the Addl. Commissioner (Rev.) with the following observations :- "I am of the view that this appeal must be dismissed for the simple reason that the appellants were illegal occupants of the Ahata in question and illegal occupation did not create any right in their favour. The Abate was allotted to Mohammad Saeed etc., respondents, who had obtained the proprietary rights and a sale deed was executed in their favour. We as a Revenue Court, are not competent to cancel this sale deed. It is only the civil Court which can do. I, therefore, dismiss this appeal."
' Hence this revision.
3. It was argued on behalf of the petitioners that they are non-proprietors and having been in possession of the Ahata in dispute since 1947 are entitled to its allotment in view of section 3 of the Punjab Housing Facilities for non-proprietors in Rural Area Act, 1975. It was further argued that the respondents were never put in possession of the Meta in dispute in terms of section 10(4) of the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912 and therefore no tenancy has therefore been created in their favour. The execution of sale deed in their favour without the delivery of possession was therefore void.
4. The learned counsel for the respondents was not able to produce any evidence to she that Mohammad Saeed respondent No, 1 was over put in possession of the Abatis in dispute in accordance with any order issued by the Collector under section 10(4) of the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912 or be was ever put in physical possession of the Abate. No tenancy was, therefore created in his favour and as such he had no right to get the sale deed or transfer the Ahata further in the name of his father. As regards the petitioner's claim, it may be observed that they are non-proprietors and admittedly in occupation of the Abate in dispute since before 20-12- 73 and, therefore, are entitled to retain it in view of section 3 of the Punjab Housing Facilities for non-proprietors in Rural Area Ordinance, 1975.
5. For the aforesaid reasons, this revision is allowed and the impugned orders are set aside.