Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition No. 914 of 1979, decided as 9th December, 1979.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Circuit, Baghad-ul-Jadid, dated 26-9-1979 passed in R. S. A. No. 46/1971/BWP).

----S. 3 and Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act (XLVII of 1958), S. 14-A [as amended in year 1964]--Petitioner's only interest in land in dispute being that of a mortgaged, petitioner entitled to get a charge created on land but taking no stops in such regard Petitioner in circumstances not vested with any right in land and liable to be evicted by Settlement authorities---Petitioner also being under obligation to disclose fact of his possession to Rehabilitation authorities and not doing so, Chairman of Allotment Committee, held, justified in allotting land to respondents, land in dispute being deemed to be hidden evacuee property.

Muhammad Nawaz Khan and others v. Muhammad Amin and others P L D 1969 Lah. 622 and Muhammad Tufail v. Chief Settlement Commissioner, Lahore 1970 S C M R 70 ref.

Mian M. Zofar Yasin, Advocate and Rana Maqbool Ahmad Kadri, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 9th December 1979.

The dispute in this case relates to 94 kanals and 15 marlas of agricultural land situate at Ahmadpur East, District Bahawalpur. The land was originally owned by one Madan Gopal. who mortgaged the same to one Chhotu Mal sometime in the year 1900. The case of the petitioner is that Chhotu Mal in turn mortgaged the said land with Hakim and Luqman, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner, and ever since then they have remained in possession of it. On 22-6-1964 however, the Chairman of the Allotment Committee of the Evacuee Property, allotted the same to the respondents although according to the petitioner the land in question had never been treated as evacuee property. The petitioner, therefore, filed a suit against the respondents in the Court of the Civil Judge, Ahmadpur East for declaration as well as permanent injunction, but vide order dated 15-10-1968, the learned Civil Judge returned the plaint for want of jurisdiction. Against the said order, the petitioner went in appeal to the Court of the District Judge, and a learned Additional District Judge, who beard the appeal dismissed the same vide his order dated 26-1-1971. Finally the petitioner went in revision to the High Court but the same was dismissed vide the impugned judgment, dated 26-9-1979.

Now from the narration of these facts, it is clear that the land in dispute was evacuee property, as the Hindu owner of it namely, Madan Gopal, as well as Chhotu Mal with whom the same had been mortgaged first had left for India, whereas the only interest of the petitioner there was that he was the mortgaged of it. In this view of matter all that h was entitled to was to get in the land a charge created in his favour but the learned counsel concedes before us that the petitioner had not taken an step in that behalf. Under the circumstances, therefore the High Court rightly held that Muhammad Nawaz Khan and others v. Muhammad Amin and others (P L D 1969 Lah. 622), (which is a Full Bench ,judgment), was against the petitioner. In fact the learned counsel conceded this position, as he could not urge anything against the said finding of the High Court.

The other difficulty in the way of the petitioner is that in accordance with the requirement of section 3 Act XII of 1957, he was obliged to disclose to the Rehabilitation Authorities that he was in possession of the land in dispute. But again the learned counsel conceded that he had failed to d so. The Chairman of the Allotment Committee of the Evacuee Property, therefore, had rightly allotted the land in dispute to the respondents, as by virtue of the said section the land in dispute was deemed to be hidden evacuee property. Furthermore, after the amendment of section 14-A of the Land Settlement Act in the year 1964, the mortgaged was entitled only to a charge over the mortgaged land but the same did not give him any vested right therein as he could be evicted from it by the Settlement Authorities. In this behalf the High Court rightly relied on Muhammad Tufail v. Chief Settlement Commissioner, Lahore and others (1970 S C M R 70).

It would thus be seen that the concurrent finding recorded against the petitioner by the two Courts below as well as the High Court seems to be proper, this petition therefore, fails and is dismissed.

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.