Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 989 of 1975, decided on 22nd February, 1981.

(On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 14‑3‑1975 in W. P. No. 808‑R/69).

‑‑-Ss. 10 & 11‑Petitioner‑In absence of clear and positive repudiation of facts held, cannot claim priority in matter of settlement of pending claim over respondents‑No material available to dislodge findings of fact, conclusion sought to be reached by petitioner, held further, cannot be arrived at‑Leave to appeal, declined.

Sher Zaman Khan, Advocate Supreme Court with Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 22nd February, 1981.

The petitioners seek leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court dated 14‑3‑1975 whereby a constitutional petition filed by them was dismissed.

2. The petitioners who are successor‑in‑interest of one Momala were entitled to allotment of 2958 P. I. Units from various claimants. They were allotted 220.1 P. I. Units in village Hamidpur, Tehsil Lodhran, District Multan along with other share‑holders. It was subsequently found that Roori and Mst. Sohagi, the two heirs of one Shatab refugee right‑holder had got duplicate allotment in Lahore District as well, against Shatab's claim. In this manner, their allotment to the extent of 124 kanals 14 marlas was cancelled from village Hamidpur allotment jointly held with Momala. To this the petitioners have no objection. Their objection was to the allotment of this land in favour of respondents Nos. 1 and 2. Their case in the cons titutional petition and before the Settlement Authorities was that their verified claim was pending satisfaction in the village and they being the allottees had a prior right to have their verified clam satisfied as against respondents Nos. 1 and 2 who had got their claim transferred subsequently from another District. The Settlement Commissioner met this claim of the petitioners by recording the following finding of fact

"Mumala did not file any appeal against the order dated 3‑7‑1965 as well as the order dated 2‑3‑1966. His own surplus P. I. Units amounting to 753 had been transferred to D. G. Khan district on 4‑5‑1965 under the general order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner that surplus units of claimants should be transferred from villages where no area was available for allotment. The respondents had got their P. I. Units transferred from Vehari to Lodhran on 22‑7‑1962. Their surplus units had not been transferred elsewhere and remained pending in the village."

The Settlement Commissioner bad rejected the claim of the petitioners.

3. The learned Judge in the High Court considered the question of cancellation of the allotment of Mst. Roori and Sohagi and held that it was proper and the petitioner had not agitated against it within time.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that so far as the cancellation of the allotment in favour of Mst. Roori and Mst. Sohagi is concerned he cannot possibly object to it as it was a case of double allotment. However, be pressed his claim for the allotment of the land so cancelled from their name on the ground that they had pending units and that the respondents could not have, as compared to them, a better entitlement to get this land allotted. The learned counsel in order to meet the finding of fact recorded by the Settlement Commissioner stated that his own pending claim was never transferred from this district to D. G. Khan and was always available and required settlement. As regards the claim of the respondents it was said that if there was such a general direction of the Chief Settlement Commissioner as was noted by the Settlement Commissioner their claim should also have been sent to D. G. Khan. There being a manifest contradic tion in the order of the Settlement Commissioner, the finding of fact made the basis for the orders against petitioners should not be allowed to stand.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to demons trate from any material on the record that his pending claim had not been transferred from District Multan to D. G. Khan or that the claim of they respondents was not pending in the District when allotment in their favour was made. His argument on the legal plane being that his claim could not be transferred, and that claim of respondents could not remain untransferred omits to take note of the fact made the basis for the decision by the Settlement Commissioner. In the absence of clear and positive repudiation of these facts the petitioners cannot claim priority in the matter of settlement of their pending claim over the respondents. There being no material whatsoever to dislodge these findings of fact, we find that the conclusions sought to be reached by the petitioners cannot be arrived at. The petition has no merit 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.