Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No. 84‑R of 1970/LHR decided on 20th February, 1975.

‑‑ Art. 98 read with Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme, Part 1, Chapter 11, para. 4‑Chief Settlement Commissioner directing allot ments already made to petitioners not to be reviewed and to apply procedure adopted for claimants of non‑agreed area under Scrutiny of Claims (Evacuee Property) Regulation (M,L.R.) No. 89‑Petitioners producing an uncertified copy of a judgment in a writ petition wherein same question considered and allotment in favour of petitioner restor ed‑Suo motu scrutiny by Central Record Office giving rise to Robkar for cancellation of allotment thereon and order of Additional Settlement Commissioner being unlawful, set aside, in circum= stances.

Ch. Qamar‑ud‑Din Meo for Appellants.

S. Najam‑ud‑Din for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 20th February, 1975.

This petition arises out of an order dated 24th November, 1969 where by the appeals filed by the petitioners were dismissed on the ground that on the basis of the record received from Bekaneer (India) they had no entitlement to hold on to the property already allotted to them.

2. The facts of the case are that the petitioners hale from Bekaneer, an area now included in India: It was an agreed area, but the Special Jamabandis, from the place, with regard to which the petitioners claim, bad not been received. Consequently the petitioners' claims remained unverified. It was ultimately on 16th April, 1959 that the Chief Settle ment Commissioner, authorised the Central Record Office, to verify the claims of such persons in accordance with the procedure adopted for the non‑agreed areas. Consequently, the petitioners' claims were verified on the evidence of two persons and they were allotted land in lieu thereof in village Meru Balooch, Tehsil Chishtian, District Bahawalnagar. It is stated that the entitlement verified in favour of the petitioners is less than 1506 P. I. U. in each case. Subsequently, somebody made a complaint to the Revenue Authorities that according to the Special Jamabandis received later, the petitioners had no entitlement at all, and that land allotted in their favour was unlawful. The case was consequently referred to the Additional Deputy Commissioner who, after hearing the petitioner on 26th September, 1969 cancelled their allotment. The petitioner filed an appeal but the same was also dismissed. The petitioners now challenge the cancellation of their allotment in this writ petition.

3. The main ground taken by the petitioners is that neither the Central Record Office nor the Settlement authorities followed the instruc tions as contained in letter No. 1006‑63/2071‑R (L) dated 12th April, 1963 issued by the Chief Settlement Commissioner. According to these instruc tions it was specifically noticed that verifications in favour of certain persons from agreed areas had been made in accordance with the procedure adopted for the claimants of non‑agreed areas. It was further stated that on the receipt of the Special Jamabandis from India about such areas the Central Record Office had passed orders canceling the allotments of these persons who had no entitlement. It was directed that the allot ments already made in such cases should not be cancelled and such allottees may be subjected to the progressive cut as prescribed in para. 5 of Martial Law Regulation 89.

4. According to this formula the persons who had been found entitled to less than 1500 P. I. U. were ordered to be allowed full entitlement.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents, however, contested the petitioners' claim on the ground that they were not entitled to any benefit at all in view of para. 4, Part 1, Chapter 11 and para, 29 of Part 2 of the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme. I am afraid, the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents is not tenable. The Chief Settlement Commissioner did, in 1963, direct that the allotments already made should not be reviewed and that the procedure adopted for claimants of non‑agreed areas under Martial Law Regulation 89, b applied to such cases. In the circumstances the suo motu scrutiny by the Central Record Office, out of which the Robkar for cancellation of the allotment was issued, and the order of the Additional Settlement Commis sioner, were not lawful. The petitioners have also produced before m an uncertified copy of a judgment in Writ Petition No. 371‑K‑70 delivered by my learned brother K. M. A. Samadani, J. in which the same question was considered and the allotment in favour of the petitioner restored.

For the reasons stated above this petition succeeds. The orders of the Central Record Office and that of the Settlement authorities canceling the allotment of the petitioners are declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. . The result is that the petitioners' allotmeu shall stand restored. M.Y.M.

M.Y.M. Petition accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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