1. ' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.---Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment, dated 4-4- 2000 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan, whereby Writ Petition No,2619 of 1996 filed by the respondent was allowed.
2. ' Precisely stating facts of the case are that respondent Taj Muhammad was allotted land measuring 100 Kanals in Chak No,95 M, Tehsil and District Lodhran, under Temporary Cultivation Scheme on 26-10-1978. The lease was extended from time to time. On 9-5-1983 the respondent applied for grant of proprietary rights under the above scheme. Said prayer was refused by the Deputy Commissioner, Lodhran, vide his order, dated 16-4-1981 on the ground that two lots could not be granted to one family as one lot had already been granted to the father of the respondent.
3. The appeal filed by the respondent against the above order was dismissed by the learned Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab, Mrough order, dated 8-2-1995. Revision Petition No,93 of 1995 filed by the respondent also met the same fate and was dismissed on 14-6-1995. Thereafter, the respondent field Writ Petition No,2619 of 1996 before the Lahore High Court at Multan, which has been allowed through the impugned judgment, dated 4-4-2000. Hence, this petition for leave to appeal.
4. ' Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that respondent Taj Muhammad got allotted the land in dispute from the Revenue Authorities as far back as on 26-10-1978 under Temporary Cultivation Scheme without disclosing the fact he was dependent upon his father Gul Muhammad being head of the family, therefore, he was not entitled under the above scheme to the allotment of land independently.
5. ' Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/caveator argued that at the time of allotment on 26-10-1978 the petitioner was himself head of his own family and was not dependent on his father.
6. According to him, at that time he was in cultivating possession of the land in dispute, which he developed after incurring considerable amount and putting labour. He also pointed out that throughout this period the respondent remained in cultivating possession and the concerned Collector never issued him a notice that he secured the land fraudulently.
7. We have considered the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the impugned judgment carefully. It may be noted that the respondent is in possession of the land right from 1978 which he has been cultivating independently since then as per the available record. We, therefore, feel no difficulty in concluding that the respondent got allotted the land in dispute in.His own right in 1978 and he, being a grown up person at that time, was not dependent on his father. In these circumstances, the learned High Court rightly issued the writ in his favour through the impugned judgment, dated 4-4-2000.
8. ' For the foregoing reasons instant petition is dismissed and leave refused.