On 5-12-1990 the respondents filed a suit against the petitioner. They stated that they are L.Rs, of Zulfiqar who was allottee of land measuring 101 Kanals, 2 Marlas as described in the heading of the plaint under the Ejected Tenants Scheme. The said Zulifqar applied for conferment of proprietary rights in respect of the entire State land. The Collector proceeded to allow the application to the extent of 64 Kanals (i,e, 8 Acres) and the Provincial Government executed a sale-deed in his favour.
However, the remaining 37 Kanals and 2 Marlas were resumed on the ground that since the land is irrigated. the said Zulifqar cannot get proprietary rights of more than 64 Kanals of land. This was done vide order dated '24-11-1988. An appeal of said Zulifqar was dismissed by the Commissioner, Faisalabad on 3-7-1988. He, however, ordered that the .land be leased to him on payment of market rent. The Member, Board of Revenue dismissed his Revision on 16-5-1990. In the plaint it was stated that Zulifqar was allotted the land in the year 1956 and at that time it was barren and irrigated and the subsequent change of classification could not be made the basis to reduce the entitlement of Zulifqar. The suit was resisted by the petitioner with the averment that the land was irrigated through a well and as such Zulifqar was not entitled to more than 64 Kanals of land. Issues were framed. Evidence of the parties was recorded. The learned trial Court dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 28-7-1993. The respondents tiled a first appeal which was heard by a learned Additional District Judge, T.T. Singh who allowed the same on 8-21995 and decreed the suit of the respondents.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that it stands established on record that the land was irrigated and as such Zulifqar was not entitled to more than 64 Kanals of land in terms of the notification dated 22-11971 relied upon by the Collector and the Commissioner as well as the Member, Board of Revenue. According to the learned counsel no case of discrimination was made out. Mr. Rehan Bashir. learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, argues that the land was allotted to the predecessor-in-interest of his clients in the year 1956 and at the said time it was barren and it was the said allottee who made the land cultivable by arranging for its irrigation. The precise contention of the learned counsel is that the terms noted in notification dated 22-1-1971 reducing the entitlement of an allottee under the Ejected Tenants Scheme to 64 Kanals of land cannot be applied to his clients. He relies on the case of Jamal Din v. The Province of Punjab and others (1985 CLC 2387).
3. I have gone through the records with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. I find that there' is no denial of the fact that the land was allotted to Zulifqar in the year 1956. Manzoor Hussain has appeared as D.W.I. In his cross-examination he has admitted that the entire land was barren and it was the said allottee who had brought it under cultivation. In his examination-in-chief he has stated that the land stands classified as Nul Chahi w,e,f, 1963-64. It will thus be seen that the admitted position on record is that the land was allotted to Zulfiqar in the year 1956 when it was barren and came to be irrigated only w,e,f, 1963-64. In the said admitted state of facts the said judgment in the case of Jamal Din v. The Province of Punjab and others (1985 CLC 2387) being relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents becomes squarely applicable and the conditions stated in the notification dated 22-1-1971 would not be applicable to the said predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner. I also find that this had been the case of Zulifqar and the petitioner throughout both before the Colony Authorities as well as the learned Courts below but was not attended to by any one.
4. The impugned judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge is, therefore, not liable to be interfered with for the reasons stated above in view of the well-founded contentions of the learned counsel for the respondents. This Civil Revision accordingly is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.