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. K‑164 of 1974, decided on 17th September 1974.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court at Karachi, dated 21‑6‑1974 in Writ Petition No. 102 of 1967).
‑‑ Para. 8--‑Land not surrendered under Regulation but its allotment cancelled under Evacuee Property Laws ‑Person obtaining double entitlement certificates on basis of one and same verified claim‑Excess allotment, held, rightly cancelled.
M. I. Memon, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 17th September 1974.
.‑This petition is from the order of a learned Single Judge of the High Court at Karachi dated 21‑6‑1974 dismissing Writ Petition No. 102 of 1967 filed by the petitioners herein.
The dispute relates to agricultural land measuring about 153.36 acres situate in Deh Gupehani Taluka Shahdadpur, District Sanghar. The land originally belonged to the Government which was granted to certain non -Muslims on the basis of permanent grant. Subsequently, grantees became evacuees and the grants in their favour were cancelled owing to their failure to pay the instalments. The land has been allotted to respondent No. 5 against his verified claim.
The petitioners have been tenants in the land, allegedly since the time of the original grant in favour of the non‑Muslims grantees. They claimed transfer of land in their favour on the allegation that the land was treated as evacuee property and transferred to respondent No. 5 in lieu of his verified claim, which according to the Q. P. R. V. issued to him, was equivalent to 10000 P. I. Units, but which on his subsequent representation, later increased to 19688 P. I. Units. However, on the promulgation of Martial Law Regulation No. 89, it is alleged that the entitlement of respondent No. 5 was determined afresh and his entitlement was reduced to 3748 P. I. Units, and had to surrender land equivalent to 16140 P. I. Units under paragraph 8 of M. L. R. 89.
The case of the petitioners is that as sitting tenants, the land surrendered by respondent No. 5 should have been offered to them which they are pre pared to purchase in case respondent No. 5 does not exercise his first option for the relevant purpose. The petitioners' offer to purchase having been refused by the Settlement authorities, they filed writ petition, which was dismissed by the impugned order, by the learned Single Judge, against which they now seek leave to appeal.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that upon surrender of the excess land by respondent No. 5, it could not have reverted to the compensa tion pool for transfer to other claimants with verified claim for land. The argument was that under the provisions of the aforesaid Martial Law Regulation, the persons surrendering the land had the first option to purchase the same, failing which the petitioners as the sitting tenants had the second option. It was further submitted that respondent No. 5 had refused to purchase the excess land and therefore, the petitioners became legally entitled to purchase the same.
From the comments filed by the Settlement Department in proceedings in the High Court, it appears that the land in dispute reverted to the com pensation pool not because of the provisions of Martial Law Regulation No. 89, but because respondent No. 5 had obtained double entitlement certificates on the basis of one and the same verified claim. Therefore, the excess allotment In favour of respondent No. 5 was cancelled. That being the ease, the decision of the learned Single Judge is not open to any exception.
The petition is dismissed.
Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer