Find a Lawyer

Civil Appeal No. 24 of 1970, heard on 6th May 1975.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the erstwhile High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated 6th December 1966, in L. P. A. No. 223 of 1961).

‑‑‑ S. 15--‑Appellant stating land allotted to him to be neither reserved for respondents nor cancelled from their allotment and requesting for remanding of case to Rehabilitation authorities for restoration of land allotted to hire other than lend allotted to respondents, or area reserved for them‑Respondents agreeing to proposal‑Case remanded as prayed for.

Ch. Khalilur Rahman, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellant.

Abdul Haq, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by M. Z. Khalil Advocate ‑on‑Record (absent) for Respondent No. 1.

Respondent No. 2 : Ex parte.

Nemo for Respondents Nos. 3 to 7.

Dates of hearing 1 5th and 6th May 1975.

.‑The dispute in this appeal relates to allotment of agricultural land in Chak No. 13/1‑L, Tehsil Okara, District Sahiwal, under the West Pakistan Rehabilitation Scheme.

170 kanals of land was reserved for allotment to respondents Nos. 3 and 4 on the basis of the certificate issued by the Central Record Office that they were entitled to an extra area of about 114 Bighas. It appears that despite this certificate, 102 kanals of land out of the reserved area was allotted to respondent No. 1, but on appeal filed by respondents 3 and 4, the allotment was set aside. A revision petition was, thereupon, filed by respondent No. 1 against this order which wets disposed of by the Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner on 10th December, 1956, with the following observation :‑---

"The respondents assert that their claim form was sent to the Central Record office with a certificate and the area claimed by them had been rightly verified. The petitioner will be entitled to the area in dispute subject to the verification of the claim of the respondents. The onus, however, lies on the petitioner. The order of the lower Court is modified to this extent."

On 1 5th May, 1957, the Central Record Office reported that respondents 3 and 4 were entitled to only 3 acres of land whereupon their entire allotment except 3 Killas was cancelled. Out of it the appellant was allotted 7 acres of land comprising of Killas 10, 11,17, 18 and 21 out of Square No. 14 and Kila 8/2 out of Square No. 2 on 15‑5‑1957. Another 3 klilas of land out of Square No. 14 was allotted to him on 22‑1‑1958.

Similarly, out of the area cancelled from the names of respondents 3 and a, respondent No. 1 was on 15‑5‑1957 allotted killas 6, 7, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 23, 24 and 25 out of Square No. 2 and Killas 22, 23 and 24/1 out of Square No. 14.

On 7th May, 195 7, respondents 3 and 4 filed Writ Petition No. 486 of 1957 in the High Court of West Pakistan, which was accepted by Division Bench, on the basis of the report submitted by tile Central Record Office that the certificate issued by that organization on 15th May. 1957 that respondents 3 and 4 were entitled only to 3 acres of land was erroneous, arid that, in fact, they were entitled to 171 acres of land. The learned Judges accordingly issued a writ to the Rehabilitation authorities not to cancel the entire allotment of land in favour of respondents 3 and 4 and to restore the allotment, if already cancelled, to the extent of their entitlement.

The order of the High Court was implemented by the Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioner on 24th June, 1959 in the following terms :‑--

(i) Respondents 3 and 4 were given 138 Kanals and 16 marlas (out of Square No. 45, Killas 1 to 3 and 7 to 10 ; Square No. 2, Killas 5 to 7, 13, 17, 18, 23, 24 ; and Square No. 14, Killas 22, 23 and 24/1).

(ii) Muhammad Umar Khan, respondent No. 1, kanals and 18 marlas (Killas Nos. 14 to 16, 25, 8/1 and 8/2 of Square; No. 2, Killas Nos. 1 to 3, 10, 11, 17, 18 and 21 of Square No. 14, and Killas Nos. 6 and 12 of Square No. 45).

On revision petition filed by the appellant and others, the Rehabilitation Commissioner, on 31st December, 1959, set aside the order of the Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioner on the ground that he could not review the order of his predecessor under which different areas of land stood allotted and confirmed in the name of the appellant and some of the respondents as under :‑---

(i) Zia‑ud‑Din, appellant was allotted on 22‑1‑1958 40 kanals and 4 marlas (Square No, 2, Killa 8/2, Square No. 14, Killas, 10, 16, 17, 18 and 21) and 21 kanals and 10 malras (Square No. 14, Killas 1, 2 and 3).

(ii) Sarfraz, respondent No. 5 was allotted on 3‑7‑1957 4 kanals out of Square, No. 45, Kills No. 6/2.

(iii) Fazal Din and Karam Din, respondents 6 and 7 were allotted on 25‑7‑1957, 6 kanal out of Square No. 1, Kills No. 8/1.

The order was impugned by respondent No.1 on Write Petition No.79/R of 1960 as without lawful authority. It was dismissed by a learned Single Judge on 28‑7‑1961.

Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, respondent No. I filed a Letters Patent Appeal which was allowed on 6th December, 1966, by a Division Bench. The order passed by the Rehabilitation Commissioner on 31st December, 1959, was set aside as without lawful authority for the reason that it was made in contravention of the earlier order passed by the High Court on 27th November, 1958, in Writ Petition No. 486 of 195'1. It was held that the Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioner was bound to carry on the order passed by the High Court and the Rehabili tation Commissioner had acted illegally in setting aside that order.

‑ The allotment In favour of respondents 3 and 4 is no longer in issue. The dispute is between Rao Zia‑ud‑Din, appellant and Muhammad Umar, respondent No. 1 as to who is entitled to the surplus land cancelled from the names of respondents 3 and 4.

Respondent No. 1 claims that as an informant he was entitled to the surplus land and relied on the observations made by A. R. Changes, J. in his order dated 27th November, 1958, disposing of Writ Petition No. 486 of 1957 that he was entitled to surplus land. The appellant contested the claim made by respondent No. 1 but in the course of arguments. Ch. Khalilur Rahman, argued that the land allotted to the appellant was neither reserved for respondents 3 and 4 nor cancelled from their allotment and made a prayer that the case be remanded to the Rehabilitation authorities with the directions that the land allotted to the appellant other than the land allotted to respondents 3 and 4 or the area reserved for them, be restored to the appellant. In that case, respondent No. 1 will have no grievance against the restoration of the allotment of land to the appellant. Sh. Abdul Haq, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 did not dispute the stand taken up by Ch. Khalilur Rahman.

We accordingly allow the appeal, set aside the order of the Letter Patent Bench of the High Court and remand the case to the Rehabilitation Commissioner with the direction to restore the allotment of land in favour of the appellant of those Killa Nos. in Square No. 2 and Square No. 14, Chak No. 13/1‑L, Tehsil Okara, District Sahiwal, which were neither allotted to nor were reserved for allotment to respondents 3 and 4 or cancelled from their names.

No order as to costs.

Order accordingly.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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