Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition No. 1006 of 1980, decided on 28th October, 1980.

(On appeal from the judgment dated 5-5-1980 of the Lahore High Court in I.-C. A. No. 118 of 1980).

Ss. 10 & 11-Question of excess allotment of land already pending determination to Court of Claims Commissioner-Order of High Court as to second petition on same matter being not competent-Held, cannot be taken exception to.

Sheikh Abdul Aziz, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 28th October, 1980.

.--This petition is directed against the order of a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court dated 5-5-1980, whereby the Intra Court Appeal (I.-C. A. 118/80) filed by the petitioner against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court dated 17-2-1980 in Writ Petition No. 38/R/77 was dismissed.

The case of the petitioner is that he has a claim in respect of the land abandoned by him in Village Agwar Khawaja Baju, Tehsil Jaggaraun, District Ludhiana, which was verified on 13-5-1959 by Ch. Ali Ahmad, Deputy Claims Commissioner, Lahore for only 17 Biswas of urban agricultural land. - The respondents applied for the issuance of an entitlement certificate to the Central Record Office. However, although they held a verified claim of 17 Biswas they, in connivance with the staff of the Central Record Office and by practising fraud and misrepresentation got their verified claim of 17 Biswas shown as 17 Bighas and a UR-V Certificate was obtained for 1078 Urban P. I. Us. against their actual entitlement of 54 P. I. Us. only. This mistake was detected on 8-1-1963 by the Central Record Office on which date the Officer on Special Duty issued a show-cause notice to them for the cancellation of the excess allotment. To prevent the cancella tion of the said excess allotment, the respondents are said to have filed a petition before the Claims Commissioner and got a stay order on 3-9-1963 and presented it to the Officer on Special Duty, Central Record Office on 2-4-1964 alongwith an application praying that the order of the cancella tion of UR-V Certificate may be withdrawn. After the presentation of the said stay order, the proceedings before the Officer on Special Duty, Central Record Office stopped. In the meanwhile, the respondents allegedly also got the original files of the Claims Organisation misplaced. Thus, no further action ever took place in connection with the cancellation of the excess allotment by the Officer on Special Duty, Central Record Office.

Some ten years later on 23-1-1974, the petitioner moved an application under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act before the Chief Settlement Commissioner bringing this fraud to his notice. The Chief Settlement Commissioner entrusted the case to the Additional Settle ment Commissioner, Faisalabad for disposal, who then forwarded it to the Court of the Assistant Commissioner/Additional Settlement Commissioner, Toba Tek Singh, for disposal. The Assistant Settlement Commissioner, Toba Tek Singh passed a detailed order on 23-12-1976 wherein he held that fraud had been committed by the respondents and he, therefore, cancelled the excess allotment to the extent of 1024 P. 1. Us. allowing the respondents to retain an area to the extent of 54 P. 1. Us. which was their genuine and correct entitlement. He further held that the petitioner was the informant and was entitled to get the resumed land confirmed against his entitlement.

The respondents challenged the order dated 23-12-1976 of the Assistant Commissioner/Additional Settlement Commissioner, Tob 'fek Singh, Faisalabad, in the Lahore Court by Writ Petition No. 38-R of 1977. A learned Judge in the High. Court accepted the said writ petition and declared the order dated 23-12-1976 passed by the Assistant Commissioner to be without lawful authority inter alia on the ground that the petitioner could not be- treated as an informant because the matter relating to the excess allotment obtained by the respondents was already pending before the Claims Commissioner. He, accordingly, remanded the matter to the learned Member, Board of Revenue/Chief Settlement Commissioner for entrusting it to a notified officer under the terms of the repealing law for taking up the petition of the respondents filed before the Claims Commis sioner, Pakistan, Lahore and taking a decision thereon. The petitioner filed an Intra-Court Appeal against the above judgment of the learned Single Judge which was dismissed by a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court on the main ground that since the matter was already pending before the Claims Commissioner with regard to the entitlement of the respondents, as such the application under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act filed by the petitioner was not competent. This petition is directed against the last-mentioned order.

After hearing Sheikh Abdul Aziz, learned counsel for the petitioner, we are of the view that no exception can be taken to the 'view taken by the High Court that on account of the question of excess allotment being pending in the Court of the Claims Commissioner, a second petition on the same matter filed under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act was not competent. We are, however, in agreement with the learned counsel for the petitioner that in spite of the application under sections 10 and 1.1 filed by him, the matter of excess allotment would have remained shelved as it had been ever since 1964. The learned counsel also expressed the apprehension that despite the order of the High Court that the matter should be taken up by a notified officer no further section is likely to be taken an i the matter will now again remain shelved and buried for ever. In order to avoid such an eventuality, the petitioner may, if so advised, apply to be impleaded as a party to the authority entrusted to deal with the matter and assist the said authority in ascertaining the true position. If the respondents are not found entitled to the allotment secured by them or to purchase the area, if any is found in excess, the petitioner as a party to the proceedings can get his excess units satisfied from the area that becomes available.

This petition with the above observations is dismissed hereby.

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.