Find a Lawyer

Petition No. 589 of 1966, decided on 24th February 1972.

, S. 15‑Permanent settlement‑Objection that allottee's husband died in India and allottee remarried, thereby losing her life interest in her husband's land‑Such objection neither taken in India nor in Pakistan, for 8 years but preferred only after land mutated in allottee's favour after clearance of settlement dues- Record received by Central Record Office from India mentioning lands claimed as exclusively and unreservedly belonging to allottee and pedigree similarly receives showing no relationship of objectors with allottee's deceased husband‑Objection, held, suffered from laches and liable to be set aside.

S. 11‑Allotment, cancellation of‑Power to cancel transfer of land‑Exclusive jurisdiction of Chief Settlement Commissioner or his delegates‑Assistant Rehabilitation Mukhtiarkar not compe tent to exercise such power‑Allotment once made final‑Could not be cancelled even under S. 11 of Act.

Umar Draz Ali v. Khurshld Alt and others P L D 1960 Lah. 834 and Baso v. Rehabilitation Commissioner (Land) P L D 1963 S C 347 not applicable.

M. A. Naqvi for Petitioners No. 1.

Abdul Majid Khan for Respondent No. 1.

Nemo for Respondent No. 2.

Date of hearing : 10th February 1972.

This petition under Article 98 of the Constitution, has been filed in the following circumstances :‑----

2. It is alleged that the petitioners are the distant kindreds of one Muhammad Siddique who was a resident of Village Gonder in the District of Karnal now in the East Punjab. Muhammad Siddique owned some agricultural lands and on his death in 1942, in accordance with the Customary law, the lands devolved on Mst. Fatima, the respondent No. 1, as his widow. The respondent No. 1 married one Dewan son of Kanwar, in early 1947, and thus her life interest in the lands terminated automatically, and the lands reverted to the reversioners of Muhammad Siddique. The petitioners and the respondent No. 1, after the Partition of the sub‑continent, migrated to Pakistan and settled in Shahdadpur. The respondent No. 1, 4 or 5 months after her arrival in Shahdadpur was divorced by Dewan and later married one Jamal. The respondent No. 1 applied for the allot ment of lands in lieu of the lands left behind her in India, and 16.32 acres of land were allotted to her in 1957. Even the clearance certificate had been issued. The petitioners apprised of this situation, made an application to the Assistant Rehabilita tion Mukhtiarkar, and Assistant Settlement Commissioner (Land) Shahdadpur challenging the allotment of the respondent No. 1. Notice was issued to Jamal, the husband of the respondent No. 1, and as he did not appear on the adjourned date, an ex parts order was made cancelling the transfer to the respondent No. 1, There were 38 heirs of Muhammad Siddique, but as a result of a compromise between them, the Assistant Rehabilitation Mukhtiarkar allotted the said lands to nine of the heirs of Muhammad Siddique in terms of the compromise arrived at between them.

3. The respondent No. I preferred an appeal before the Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner (Land), Sanghar which was allowed by the order dated 31‑8‑1965, in which it was held that the respondent No. 1 was the rightful allottee of the land and the Assistant Rehabilitation Mukhtiarkar had no power to revise the Khatoni. A revision application was preferred before the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner (Land) Hyderabad Division, which came to be dismissed by the order dated 1‑7‑1966. A revision application was then filed in the High Court, but as due to the amendment in the law, the revision application in question was not competent, it was withdrawn and the orders of the Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner (Land), Sanghar and the Settlement Commissioner (Land), Hyderabad Division, came to be challenged by this petition.

4. The parties hail from the Agreed Area and it is an admitted position that the lands had been allotted to the respon dent No. 1 on the receipt of the farde haqiat' from the Central Records Office, Lahore. The lands were allotted to the respon dent No. 1 on 25‑10‑1957 and the clearance certificate had been issued to her on 18‑3‑1965, after the payment of the Rehabilitation fees by her. It is also an admitted position that none of the petitioners had filed any claim of theirs in this context before the Central Records Office at any time, and made the application before the Assistant Rehabilitation Mukhtiarkar, and Assistant Settlement Commissioner (Lands), Sanghar, as late as 2‑4‑1965. The order of the Assistant Rehabilitation Mukhtiarkar shows that the respondent No. 1 had not been personally served. The notice was issued to Jamal, and one Muhammad Usman, alleged to be the attorney of the respondent No. 1. The hearing was fixed for 12‑4‑1965, but as the date fell on a holiday, another notice was issued for 19‑4‑1965 when Jamal is stated to have appeared in person. He was directed to appear on 20‑4‑1965, and as he failed to appear on that date, an ex parte order followed. It is also clearly made out from the record that on the basis of the statement of two witnesses the learned Assistant Rehabilitation Mukhtiarkar found that the respondent No. 1 had only life Interest in the estate of Muhammad Siddique which according to him terminated in 1947 as a result of her re‑marriage. The Assistant Rehabilitation Mukhtiarkar, then, on the basis of the so‑called compromise between the reversioners, allotted the land to the petitioners.

5. Evidently no notices was served on the respondent No. 1. There is also nothing to show that Muhammad Usman was her attorney. It can not, therefore, be said that the proceedings before the Assistant Rehabilitation Mukhtiarkar were with due notice to the respondent No. 1 and were thus vitiated. Further the record received by the Central Record Office, Lahore, from India explicity mentions the lands in Gonder as the exclusive property of the respondent No. 1 without any limitation on her rights. The pedigree officially received did not show the petitioners in any way related to Muhammad Siddique. It is also noticeable that up to the year 1965, the petitioners had not cared to file any claim for the allotment of the lands on the basis of their alleged rights and when they made the application the lands had been mutated in the name of the respondent No. 1 after she had cleared all the Rehabilitation dues.

6. The lands in Gonder, were in the name of the respon dent No.1 without any limitation and no body else was to be considered for the allotment except her, It is alleged by the petitioners that Muhammad Siddique had died in India in 1912, and the respondent No. 1 had remarried early in 1947, thus losing her life interest, but nothing was done by the petitioners in India and no step was taken by them to file their claim here. The parties were living together in Shahdadpur, but evinced no interest whatsoever for full 8 years. No explanation has been offered. This laches on their part would be a hurdle in their way. It was after the mutation had been effected in the name of the respondent No. 1 that they moved the application before the Assistant Rehabilitation Mukhtiarkar.

7. It was contended by Mr. Abdul Majeed Khan, learned counsel for the respondent, that the Assistant Rehabilitation Mukhtiarkar was otherwise not competent to cancel the transfer in favour of the respondent No. 1. It could be done only under section 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958. He also contended that the powers therein were the exclusive jurisdiction of the Chief Settlement Commissioner or his delegatee, and could not be exercised by the Assistant Rehabilitation Mukhtiarkar. Even section 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act would not be attracted after the allotment was made final. Nothing was urged by Mr. M. A. Naqvi, learned counsel for the petitioners, to repel these conten tions, Mr. Naqvi, however, referred me to the cases of Umar Draz Ali v. Khurshid Ali and others (P L D 1960 Lah. 834) and Baso v. Rehabilitation Commissioner (Land) (P L D 1963 S C 347). However, these authorities will have no application looking to the facts involved. Further as observed in the earlier decision;

" Cases in which the estate of the deceased right holder had already been mutated in the name of his heir in the revenue record stands on a different footing for no question of determining of law of inheritance arose in such cases".

8. It can not, therefore, be said that the impugned orders suffered from any blemish or were passed without lawful authority. There is no substance in the petition. I will, therefore, dismiss it with costs.

S. A. H. Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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