Find a Lawyer

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court at Lahore, dated the 6th August 1970, in Civil Revision No. 678 of 1970).

Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act (XLVII of 1958),

Ss. 22 & 25‑Cancellation by settlement authority of khata of an allottee on ground of entire Fard Haqiat being cancelled by Central Record Office‑Order challenged in civil Court‑Held: jurisdiction of civil Courts in such matters expressly barred by Ss. 22 & 25.

Zariullah Khan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. Waiid Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record f9r. Petitioner,

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing 30th June 1971,

SAJJAD AHMAD, J.‑

The khata in dispute was confirmed in the name of the petitioner, and an appeal was preferred against this confirmation by respondents 4 to S, which was rejected by the A. D. C., Lyallpur, on the 7th of September 1963.

However, on the 2nd of July 1965, the Chairman, Allotment Committee, exercising his powers as the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Lands, cancelled this khata from the allotment of the petitioner, and made it over to respondents Nos. 2 and 3 by the following order :‑

"According to the report of the patwari, the claim form has been inspected. The entire Fard Haqiat has been cancelled from the Central Record Room. The right‑holder is not entitled to obtain any area in lieu thereof. The confirmed area of this khata is being cancelled, as the right‑holder is not entitled to get any area. The khata is cancelled."

The petitioner challenged this order in civil Court at Lyallpur to obtain a declaration that this order is illegal and without jurisdic tion. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court, and so were the appeal and the revision brought before the District Judge and the High Court respectively, leading to this petition for special leave to appeal.

As the petitioner was left with no entitlement after the cancellation of the Fard‑e‑Haqiat from the Central Record Office, no exception can be taken to the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner. In any case, the petitioner has misconceived his remedy by taking the matter to the civil Court instead of availing of his remedies of appeal and revision to the Settlement authorities, as provided by the Land Settlement Act. The jurisdiction of the civil Courts in such matters is expressly barred by the provisions of section 22 read with section 25 of the Land Settlement Act. This petition is dismissed.

Leave refused.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.