Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 78 of 1973, decided on 5th October 1973.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court dated the 11th December 1972, to Settlement Revision No. 82 of 1972).
----Ss. 10, 14 & 15‑Transfer of land obtained in excess of area of entitlement‑Settlement authorities entitled to deduct any area from land transferred (in lieu of claim) equivalent to area of excess land‑‑Petitioner, held, not entitled to choose area he wished to surrender.
Ch. Hamiduddin, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate‑ on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 5th October 1973.
The petitioner abandoned some land in village Phuloowala Dogran, Tehsil and District Karnal, East Punjab. The total area abandoned was shown by the Patwari to be 93 bighas 16 b1swas in the special jamabandi received from India. This was challenged by respon dent No. 3 and the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner and the Settlement Commissioner have held that this figure is wrong because the actual total of the abanboned area is only 43 bighas and 16 biswas. On this finding, the entitlement of the petitioner, in excess of 43 bighas 16 biswas, had been ordered to be withdrawn. The petitioner challenged this order in Settlement Revision No. 82 of 1972, and a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, by order dated the 11th December 1972, dismissed the revision in limine. The petitioner seeks permission to file an appeal against the said order.
Ch. Hamidudin, learned counsel for the petitioner, has not challenged the finding of the Land Settlement authorities that the actual total of the abandoned area is only 43 bighas and 16 biswas. His contention is that the petitioner should be given a choice and the matter should not be left to the Settlement authorities to withdraw the area whichever they like. There is a finding to this effect in favour of the petitioner by the Settlement Commis sioner, but the Settlement Commissioner by order dated the 1st December 1972, observed as under :‑
"Having regard to all the facts and circumstances of the case, I believe the allotment subsequent to the complete satisfaction of the due claim of Mushtaq should be cancelled excluding the area which was sold by him or which is under a stay from the Custodian. The record of allotment shows that the latest allotments made to Mushtaq were under Khata No. 1070 on 7‑2‑1968 and Khata No. 1061/1043/331 on 24‑4‑1968. 12 kanals of land in Khata No. 1061/1043/331 had been sold by Mushtaq. That has to be deducted from this khata. After that the area under Khata No. 1070, the remainder of Khata No. 1061/1043/331 and some other area from some other khata should be cancelled so that the excess allotment equivalent to 50 bighas on the whole is cancelled".
In our opinion, the above observation of the learned Settlement Com missioner appears to us to be quite justified. The Settlement authorities are entitled to deduct any area to the extent of 50 bighas from the area of the land in dispute. No exception can be taken to it. The petition is dismissed.
Leave refused.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer