ORDER SIIAIIZAD IIASSAN PERVEZ, MEMBER (JUDICIAL-I).- Kamau. Father of the present petitioner and Jafar Hussain, respondent, entered into litigation over a piece of land measuring 16 Kanals bearing Khasra Nos. 16 and 17 of Square No. 29, Chak No. 319/EB, Tehsil Burewala in the year 1971. Kamqu claimed to be State tenant of this land. He applied to A.C.-II for ejectment of Jafar Hussain from this area. His petition bore fruit. Appeal against this order of ejectment was dismissed by A.C/Collector.
Revision tiled by Jafar Hussain was dismissed by Additional. Commissioner (Revenue), Multan Division, Multan vide his order dated 28th July, 1971. The pleadings of Karnau reproduced as under were accepted by Additional Commissioner:- "On the other had the learned counsel for the respondent relies on the entries in Jamabandi for the year 1966-67 which show that the land belongs to the Provincial Government and Karnau , respondent is a tenant under the Society under whom Jafar Hussain is sub-tenant Ghair Dakhilkar."
The parties also took the dispute to Civil Court in a declaratory suit.
2. Gohar Ali son of Karnau submitted an application to District Collector. Vehari for grant of proprietary rights of this land. Vide order of District Collector dated 23rd January, 1984. His petition was dismissed. In this order D.C/Collector observed:- "The Register Girdawari indicates that some time Karnau was in possession and some time it was cultivated by Jafar Hussain. This additional area is not included in the allotment of Karnau father of Gohar Ali petitioner. Under the law, no allotment under Society Scheme could be made after 30.6.1961. Both the parties were definitely in unauthorized possession of this and as such they are not eligible to retain it... The land in question is resumed forthwith."
3. Gohar Ali son of Karnau and Jafar Hussain filed two separate appeals against this order in the Court of Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), Multan Division, Multan. These appeals were decided by single order dated 16th June, 1991. It was observed by Additional Commissioner:- "It is true that according to the record of the Society, different resolutions for the allotment of land in question were passed at different times in favour of Jafar Hussain appellant and Karnau father of Gohar Ali appellant. These resolutions did not amount to valid allotment-orders which could be issued only by the District Collector, Vehari under Section 10(3) of the Colonization of Govt. Lands Act, 1912. No such order was issued in favour of the parties concerned at any stage."
4. Gohar Ali has filed this revision petition against the order dated 16th June, 1991 of Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), Multan Division wherein Jafar Hussain besides the State has been cited as respondent. Jafar Hussain associated with the proceedings hut later he absented himself whereupon on 3rd June, 19%, ex-parte proceedings were ordered against him.
5. It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that Kamau, father of Gohar Ali was allotted land measuring 78 Kanals, 16 Marlas, comprising Khasra Nos. 6/1, 2. 3, 6 to 12, 13/half, situated, in Chak No. 319/EB, Tehsil Burewala under Co-operative Farming Scheme in the year 1948. By order of District Collector dated 28th March, 1969, he was allowed to acquire proprietary rights of this land. Since the allotted area was less than the subsistence holding, in order to make up the- deficiency, Khasra Nos. 16 and 17 of Square No. 29, measuring 16 Kanals were allotted to Kamau by a resolution of the Society dated 3rd June, 1975, Parchi Taqseem was also delivered to him by the Cooperative, Farming Society. Jafar Hussain, respondent was in unauthorized possession of Khasra Nos. 16 and 17 of Square No. 29. Kamaoo, in whose favour, Cooperative Farming Society had passed resolution preferred an ejectment petition. Order for ejectment of Jafar Hussain was passed by A.C-II on 17th March, 1971. Apneal and revision tiled by Jafar Hussain against this order were dismissed by A.C/Collector and Additional Commissioner respectively, In the order of ejectment, appeal and revision, the basis of the orders in favour of Kamau was the acceptance of his status as tenant of land under whom Jafar Hussain was a sub-tenant. The determination of his status made in the order of Additional Commissioner dated 28th July, 1971, not having been challenged or set aside has attained finality. Gohar Ali, it was stated, was also allotted land bearing Khasra No. 8/5 on the basis of, resolution of the Chak Society on 26th June. 1981. It was argued that District Collector erred in holding that the petitioner was not a tenant of the subject land. Additional Commissioner also not appreciated the true facts of the case and wrongly dismissed his appeal.
6. Colony Clark of the office of D.C/Collector was called to appear in this Court. He. Stated that on 30th June, 1961, Co-operative Farming Societies were debarred from making any recommendation for allotment of land. He produced record of the office of Colony Branch of District Collector Office where in no order under section 10(3) or 10(4) of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab)
Act. 1912 in respect of the subject land was passed by District Collector in favour of the petitioner.
7. I have given careful consideration to the arguments of the petitioner, It is clearly established that no orders under Section 10(3) and 10(4) of the Colonization of. Government Lands (Punjab) Act. 1912 were passed by District Collector in respect of the subject land in favour of the petitioner. Gohar Ali and his predecessor-in-interest were, therefore, not vested with the status of state tenant of the subject land.
8. It is worth noting that resolutions for allotment of the subject land in favour of the petitioner were made in the years 1975 and 1981 .o mentioned in the impugned orders and also professed by the petitioner. Whereas he was shown in the entries of Jamabandi for the year 1966-67 as tenant under the Society of land comprising Khasra Nos. 16 and 17 of Square No. 29. It is not the claim of the petitioner that he was allotted the subject land prior to the resolution of 1975. The entries of Jamabandi for the year 1966-67. Therefore, do not depict true picture. In any. Case, construction can be placed on these entries to mean that he was allowed, rightly or wrongly, by the society to possess the land in question for cultivation. By this, it cannot be construed to mean that he become state tenant of the subject land." The order of District Collector rejecting the claim of Gohar Ali and J afar Hussain on the land in dispute was well-based since they were never conferred the status of State tenant. The order of Additional Commissioner upholding the order of D.C/CoIlector is well- based and legally firm. The revision petition being devoid of force is dismissed.