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 petition for special Leave to Appeal No. 637 of 1977, decided on 11th February, 1978.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court dated the 11th October, 1977 in Review petition NO. 50 of 1977.)
------S.14 (1-A) read with Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Law(Repeal) Ordinance (XV of 1974), S.3 (1) proviso---Information s have a legal right to allotment of land unearthed as a result of information given by them--Land in dispute having been unearthed and resumed on basis of information given by respondents, respondents, held, have a prior right to its allotment in accordance with their entitlement Land left surplus after allotment to informants however open to purchase by petitioners in terms of proviso to S.3 (1) of Ordinance XV of 1974.
Ch. Khurshid Ahmad Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. Inayat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record for petitioners.
Ghazanfar Ali Gondal, instructed by Kh. Wali Muhammad Advocate-on-Record for Respondent No.1.
Nemo for Respondents Nos. 2 and 3.
Date of hearing : 11th February, 1978.
This petition seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated the 25th of September, 1977, by which a Constitution petition filed by the petitioners against the cancellation of agricultural land in two Village of Gujranwala District from the name of their predecessor-in-interest Nasira son of Bakhsha was dismissed.
By an elaborate order passed on the 22nd of June, 1976, the learned Settlement Commissioner (Land), exercising the powers of the Chief Settlement Commissioner Held that Nasira son of Bakhsha was an imposter who had no connection whatsoever with the alleged right holder Amiruddin son of Sadruddin, whose rightful heirs had already obtained land according to their entitlement in certain villages of Bahawalpur District. Accordingly, he cancelled the allotment made in the name of Nasira son of Bakhsha and directed that as the fraud has been unearthed on the Mukhbari application of respondent No.1, the resumed land may be allotted to the said informant subject to his entitlement and unsatisfied units.
The only point urged on behalf of the petitioners in the High Court was that being bona fide purchasers for valuable consideration, they were entitled to purchase the disputed land in view of the proviso to section 3 (1) (b) of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Ordinance, 1974, which came into operation on the 1st of July, 1974. The learned Judge repelled this contention on the ground that under the newly inserted subsection (1-A) of section 14 of the Displaced persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, the informant had a vested right in the allotment of the land unearthed on the basis of information given by him. He, however, observed that after the entitlement of the informant had been satisfied, the petitioners may have a chance to purchase the surplus land.
Leave to appeal is sought on the same ground as was urged before the High Court, namely, that under the law an entitlement bad accrued in favour of the petitioners to purchase the land in dispute in terms of the proviso to section 3(1) of the Evacuee Properties and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Ordinance, 1974, as the petitioners had been in continuous possession of the land for four successive harvests preceding the Kharif of 1973. The learned counsel contends that the Settlement Commissioner failed to exercise the jurisdiction vesting in him as it was incumbent on him to offer the land to the petitioners but be completely overlooked the relevant provision. It is next submitted that in any case the entitlement of the informant does not extend to the entire land purchased by the petitioners, and for this reason as well the order made by the learned Settlement Commissioner is not sustainable in law.
In view of the provisions contained in subsection (1-A) of section 14 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, it is clear that the inform ants have a legal right to the allotment of land unearthed as a result of information given by them. As the land in dispute has been resumed on the basis of information given by the respondents, they have a prior right to its allotment in accordance with their entitlement. The learned counsel for the petitioners is not in a position to contend that the provision of sub section (1-A) of section 14 aforesaid stand superseded by the subsequent legislation. To this extent therefore, the order made by the learned A Settlement Commissioner, and upheld by the High Court, is not open to exception.
The learned counsel is, however, right in submitting that if there is an area surplus to the entitlement of the informants, then the petitioners would b entitled purchase the same in terms of proviso to section 3 (1) of the Ordinance of 1974, which was replaced by Act XXXVI of 1974. The petitioners should make the necessary application to the Settlement Revenue authorities concerned, and we have no doubt that it will be dealt with according to law.
With these observations the petition is dismissed.
Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer