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 Appeal No. 17 of 1971, decided on 5th May 1976.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the erstwhile High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated 4th April 1969, in Letters Patent Appeal No. 157 of 1969).
‑‑-Ss. 10 & 11‑Cancellation of allotment‑Land in dispute never allotted to appellants' ancestor nor appellants ever in possession of same‑ Contention that allotment in favour of appellants' ancestor having obtained finality could not be cancelled by Settlement authority, in circumstances, held, of no force and appeal resting entirely on such assertion must fail.
Ch. Abdul Rahman, Advocate and Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Appellants.
M. Arif, Advocate and Ejaz Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No. 1.
Respondent No. 2 : Ex parte.
Date of hearing : 5th May 1976
.‑‑Leave to appeal was granted in this case on the submission made by the learned counsel that the land, in dispute, measuring 23 kanals and 7 marla situated in Chak No. 287/EB, Tehsil Vehari, District Multan, was allotted to Jhanda, father of the appellants, in 1952, and possession delivered to him, but on 17‑12‑1963, the Additional Settlement Commissioner cancelled the allotment and allotted the land to Lal Muhammad, respondent No. 1, on the ground that Jhanda had obtained land in excess of the ceiling fixed for the estate at 500 produce index units. It was contended that the order of allotment in favour of Jhanda having attained finality, the Additional Settlement Commissioner acted without lawful authority in cancelling the allotment and giving the land to respondent No. 1.
The order was challenged in the erstwhile High Court of West Pakistan by a writ petition, but a learned Judge dismissed it inter alia on the ground that it was not proved that the land was at any time allotted to Jhanda. It was urged that, the High Court had acted in error as the land was allotted to Jhanda and on his demise the appellants had been in possession since 1952.
We have now examined the record and find that the very premises on which leave to appeal was granted is incorrect. In view of the entries in RL II the learned counsel for the appellants shifted his position and stated that a proposal for allotment of the land in dispute to Jhanda was made in 1953. It is mentioned in the order passed by the Additional Settlement Commissioner on 4‑9‑1963 that Khasra Girdawaris Exhs. I, II and III, filed by Lai Muhammad, respondent, showed that prior to 1962, neither Jhanda nor his sons had been in possession of the disputed land. When the attention of the counsel for the appellant was drawn to the fact of the order he gave up the position that Jhanda or his heirs have been in possession.
It follows that the land in dispute was at no stage allotted to Jhand and that neither he nor his son, the appellants herein, have ever been i possession. The contention that the allotment in favour of Jhanda had obtained finality and could not be cancelled by the Additional Settlement Commissioner accordingly fails and so does the appeal which rested entirely on this assertion.
Dismissed. No costs.
Appeal dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer