Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 707 of 1975, decided on 2nd December, 1980.

(On appeal from the judgment of Lahore High Court dated 14-4-1975 in

Writ Petition No. 1084-R of 1970)..

S. 10-Cancellation of allotment of land-Finding of fact by Settle ment Authorities that petitioner had fraudulently obtained allotment of land-Refusal of High Court to interfere with impugned order cancelling such allotment--Held, cannot be found fault with in circumstances.

S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 2nd December, 1980.

.--This is a petition for special leave to appeal from the judgment of Lahore High Court dated 14-4-1975 by which the orders of the Settlement Commissioner and the Additional Settlement Commissioner dated 5-8-1970 and 19-1-1970 respectively were upheld. By these orders, the confirmation of the disputed land obtained by the petitioners, against verified claim of one Abdullah son of Manila was cancelled on the ground that the petitioners have no relationship with the said deceased claimant.

The facts briefly stated are that petitioner Karim-ud-Din got the claim of Abdullah son of Manila verified under Claim Form No 13579 and got the disputed land confirmed in the name of the claimant on 22-11-1958. He had, earlier, approached. the Revenue Authorities and secured mutation No. 12 dated 8-4-1958 on the strength of his statement that his father, Bhora Khan, was brother of Mamla, father of claimant Abdullah, and since the claimant died issueless, the petitioners were the only legal heirs entitled to inherit his property.. On certain information laid before them, the enforcement Police, 'after investigating into the matter, reported to the Settlement Authorities that the petitioners had no relationship with the claimant Abdullah. It transpired during the investigation that petitioners did not belong to the same caste as the deceased claimant, they also came from a different place in India, and even, otherwise, petitioners' father Bhora Khan was alive at the relevant time and they were, therefore, not entitled to the inheritance. After a round of litigation, the case was dealt with by the Additional Settlement Commissioner, who, by the order dated 5-8-1970, cancelled petitioners' allotment, and the Settlement Commissioner confirmed this order in his revisional jurisdiction, and the High Court refused to interfere with these orders for the reason that on the basis of the material before them, the Settlement Authorities were, thus, entitled to have passed the orders dated 19-1-1970 and 3-8-1970, and no interference is called for therein".

In support of this petition, Mr. S. Inayat Husain Advocate submits that the evidence produced by the petitioners in their favour was not even considered by the Additional Settlement Commissioner and the Settlement Commissioner, and the orders passed by them are liable to be set aside.

This argument is totally baseless for the reason that the High Court has observed that "no positive evidence, oral or documentary, is shown to have been laid before these authorities", and on the contrary,. before the High Court "it was urged on behalf of the petitioners that they were prevent ed from leading evidence for want of adequate opportunity". This plea was rejected by the High Court for very cogent reasons. Learned counsel was unable to controvert the observation of the High Court that "no positive evidence, oral or documentary, is shown to have been laid before the Settlement Authorities" The plea raised by the learned counsel, therefore, has no force and is rejected.

In view of the finding of fact reached by the Settlement Authorities that the petitioners had fraudulently obtained the allotment of land no fault can be A found with the High Court in refusing to interfere with impugned orders.

The petition is dismissed in limine.

Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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