Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 984 of 1975, decided on 22nd February, 1981.

(On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 24‑4‑1975 in W. P. No. 1069/69).

‑‑‑ Art. 185(3)‑Leave to appeal‑Allotment‑Contention that peti tioner took away entire clam of units from District, contradicted by finding of Settlement Commissioner‑Disputed land allotted earlier to respondent's predecessor‑in‑interest in satisfaction of verified claim Allotment, held, not available to petitioner‑Decision suffering from no ‑‑ legal infirmity, leave to appeal, declined.

Sh. Maqbool Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court with Masud Akhtar Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 22nd February, 1981.

The petitioner, an allottee of agricultural land, seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 24‑4‑1975 whereby a constitutional petition filed by respondents Nos. 1 to 7 was allowed and the allotment in petitioner's favour was held to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.

2. Khasra No. 22/2 of Square No. 8 in Chak No. 26‑J. B. Tehsil and District Faisalabad was admittedly allotted to Mst. Bano on 21‑7‑1954. The respondents Nos. 1 to 7 happened to be the successor‑in‑interest of Mst. Bano. This Khasra number was again allotted to the petitioner on 20‑12‑1967. The respondents Nos. 1 to 7 on coming to know of the double allotment sought its cancellation but their appeal was rejected as also their revision petition. Hence a constitutional petition was filed which was allowed in terms indicated.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the facts of the case were somewhat different. Mst. Bano, the claimant had died and was succeeded by Mst. Jannat her daughter, Baboo her brother and Boota her nephew. It is contended that not only Baboo and Boota but also Mst. Jannat had taken away all their verified claims to other districts and got allotment in full satisfaction of it. The land so released was allotted to the petitioner. It was according to the learned counsel not a case of double allotment. The allotment in favour of the petitioner suffered from no infirmity. The respondents could not protect their own earlier allotment in view of fact that Mat. Jannat the immediate predecessor‑in‑interest of respondents Nos. 1 to 7 had taken away even her share out of the district.

4. The entire case of the petitioner is based on certain controverted question of fact as alleged by him. The order of the Settlement Commissioner gives a clear indication that the entitlement of Mst. Bano worked out to 3089 P. I. Units. Of this 1779 P. I. Units fell to the share of Mst. Jannat, 194 P. I. Units to the share of Boota and 1156 P. i. Units to the share of Baboo Khan. Out of the total entitlement of 1937 P. 1. Units of Mst. Jannat, 1051 P. I. Units were settled in the name of Mst. Jannat in Chak No. 26‑JB. Mst. Jannat took away only the balance to Rahimyar Khan District and got it settled there. Khasra No. 22/2 is the one which was earlier settled in favour of Mil. Jannat in satisfaction of the claim left intact in this estate. The contention of the learned counsel that the entire claim of 1739 P. I. Units was taken away by the petitioner, from district is contradicted by this finding of the Settlement Commissioner. As the disputed land had been allotted earlier to the respondents' predecessor‑in‑interest and was in satisfac tion of her verified claim settled in the estate it was not available land for being allotted to the petitioner. The decision under appeal suffers from no legal infirmity. Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused.

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.