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. 283 of 1974, decided on 15th October 1974.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, dated 3rd October 1973, in Writ Petition No. 207/R of 1966).
-----S. 22‑Finality of orders‑Chief Settlement Commissioner's order dismissing petitioner's revision application never challenged by petitioner‑Order, held, attained finality and not open to challenge in High Court.
‑‑ S. 15‑Petitioner non‑allottee of disputed land‑Could have no locus standi to retain land.
‑‑ S. 15‑‑‑Order purporting to show allotment of disputed land in petitioner's favour making no reference to cancellation of land from respondent's name such being condition precedent for availability of land for transfer to petitioner‑Previous order of allotment not having been cancelled fresh allotment of such land, held, could not be made in favour of petitioner.
-----S. 15‑Dispute about entitlement of respondents exclusively based on allegedly erroneous classification of land and correctness of area claimed as abandoned by respondents not challenged- Petitioner, held, rightly declared to be not entitled to transfer of land.
Ch. Hamid‑ud‑Din, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate‑ on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 15th October 1974.
.---‑Mohammad Bashir petitioner is a right- holder having a verified claim of agricultural land abandoned by him in India. Most of his units still remain unsatisfied.
Respondents obtained confirmed allotments of land in village KotSohnda, Tehsil and District Sheikhupura which on revivification was found to be excess. The Deputy Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Sheikhupura directed the cancellation of the land found to be in excess of their entitlement vide order dated 13‑1‑59. In appeal the Additional Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Lahore, directed that cancel lation of excess area should be deferred till such time as respondents' entitlement was finally determined after comparison of the Revenue Record at the border with the Indian Authorities. This order was unsuccessfully challenged in revision, by the present petitioner. During the pendency of the comparison at the border the Deputy Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner vide his order dated 15‑3‑1963 again directed the cancellation of the excess area. This order was successfully challenged by the respondents. In the meantime however the petitioner appears to have obtained in his favour an allotment order dated 8‑12‑1963 pertaining to a part of the land in occupation of the respondents. It was successfully challenged by them before the Chief Settlement Commissioner who vide his order dated 25‑1‑1964 directed maintenance of status quo. This was supplemented by another order dated 22‑3‑1965 whereby the respondents' allotment was kept in‑tact and they were allowed to retain the entire area. In order to assail this order the petitioner unsuccessfully invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court which dismissed his Writ Petition No. 207/R of 1966 vide judgment dated 11‑1‑1974 against which the petition for special leave to appeal has now been moved before us.
Having heard the learned counsel we are satisfied that the petition must fail on more than one ground. The learned Judge in Chamber dismissed the petition on the grounds firstly, that the order of the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner dated 1‑101960 dismissing the petitioner's revision against the order of the Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner's dated 8‑9‑1959 was never challenged by him and as such attained finality. It was rightly observed by the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner that the petitioner being a non‑allottee of the disputed land had no locus standi. Secondly the order dated 8‑12‑1963 which formed the sheet‑anchor of the petitioner's case purporting to show an allotment of the disputed land in his favour made no reference whatsoever to the cancellation of the land from the name of the respondents which was a condition precedent c for the availability of the land. There could be no question of fresh allot ment of the land in favour of the petitioner without a previous order of its cancellation from the name of the respondents which is simply non existent. Again this order was passed behind the back of the respondents. Thirdly the dispute about the entitlement of the respondents was exclusively based on an allegedly erroneous classification of the land, the correctness of the area claimed as abandoned by them having remained unchallenged.
Having heard the learned counsel we are convinced that these were valid grounds whose soundness cannot be challenged on the factual or legal plane. The impugned judgment does not suffer from any illegality justi fying the interference of this Court. The petition is therefore 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