Find a Lawyer

‑‑ Ss. 11 & 12 ‑ Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act (XIV of 1975), S. 2‑Allotment of land‑Mutation- While sanctioning mutation Revenue Officer, held, has no jurisdiction to ignore final order of Settlement Authority passed under Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act in his capacity as notified officer Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199.

Mere fact that respondent had challenged allotment in respect of relevant Khata allotted in favour of different party could not lay foundation. for collateral attack on orders which attained finality in law. Such order could not in law be ignored by Revenue Offcer on analogy of partial success of respondent qua a third party.

‑‑ Ss. 11 & 12‑Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act (XIV of 1975), S. 2‑Allotment of land‑Land under temporary allotment of Jammu & Kashmir Refugee allotted to a claimant displaced person going unchallenged by such refugee and becoming final‑Contention that land in temporary allotment of a Jammu & Kashmir refugee could. not have been allotted to a displaced person and that Extra Assistant Settlement Commissioner being a notified officer under Act XIV of 1975 was competent to ignore order of allotment to claimant displaced persons, held, not tenable‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199.

Jammu & Kashmir Refugee himself accepting and acquiescing in allotment made to claimant displaced person and allowing it to become final by his own act. He could not be permitted to make a collateral attack after over a decade. Even if it is to be assumed that Extra Assistant Settlement Commissioner was a notified officer there were no proceedings pending before him since before repeal of Displaced Persons Land Settlement Act and as such he was wholly incompetent to set aside or ignore order passed by a competent authority long before repeal of Act. Impugned order of Extra Assistant Settlement Commissioner whereby he purported to cancel allotment of land purchased by petitioner lacking in jurisdiction, held, without lawful authority and of no legal effect.

Malik Iftikhar Ali for Appellants.

Ch. Muhammad Abdullah for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 25th January, 1982.

This is a writ petition directed against the order of Extra Assistant Settlement Officer, Narowal dated 25th February, 1978 whereby he purported to cancel the allotment of the land purchased by the petitioners.

2. The writ petition arises out of the following brief facts and circum stances :‑

That the petitioners purchased through registered sale‑deed dated 26th December. 1967 land measuring 121. Kanals and 1 Maria from original claimant Mst. Jiwni who.was allotted the same at R L‑II Khata No. 189 of Mauza Saddowala Noncha, Tehsil Narowal, District Sialkot for a sum of Rs.15,000. Sale‑deed was also followed by a mutation entered on 10th January, 1968 and sanctioned by the Revenue Officer on 27th March, 1968. The petitioners are in possession of the said land as vendees ever since. In the same village an area of 126 Kanals comprised the temporary allotment of Farman Ali, respondent No. I refugee from Jammu & Kashmir since deceased and now represented by successors‑in‑interest Hayat Muhammad and two others. The entire allotment of Farman Ali was cancelled by Deputy Settlement Commissioner vide order dated 24th February; 1966.

3. That out of the area cancelled from the name of Farman Ali 86 (eighty‑six) Kanals were allotted to other claimants namely, Abdul Karim and Abdul Qadeer on 7th June, 1967 at R L‑11 Khata No. 188 of the same village. The balance area of 40 Kanals was confirmed in allotment to respondent No. 2 Mst. Jiwni at R L‑I1 Khata No. 189 from whom the petitioners are the purchasers. The present disputes to 40 Kanals which were allotted to Mst. Jiwni after this was cancelled from the name of respondent No. 1, Farman Ali.

4. Respondent No. 1, Farman Ali challenged only the allotment made in favour of Abdul Karim and Abdul Qadeer at R L‑11 Kbata No. 188 and his appeal was accepted by the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner (Land) vide order dated 28th January, 1969 (Annexure D' to the writ petition). This appellate order was further by vendees from Abdul Karim etc. challenged in revision/but the same was dismissed by the learned Settlement Commissioner vide order dated 24th December, 1969. There after, it appears that one Muhammad ldrees filed an application under section 10/11 of the Displaced Persons Land Settlement Act against Farman Ali which was dismissed by the Settlement Commissioner (Land) on 12th February, 1976. Then on 25th October, 1976 Farman Ali through his attorney gave an application to respondent No. 3, Extra Assistant Settlement Officer, Sialkot, for implementation of the order of the Settlement Commissioner dated 10th February, 1976. It is to be noted that the order dated 10th February, 1976 merely disposed of the Mukhbri application Muhammad Idrees against Farman Ali. The petitioners were not a party to those proceedings. Even this Mukhbri application was dis posed of on the ground of want of jurisdiction because the Settlement Commissioner with the powers of Chief Settlement Commissioner held that an officer of concurrent jurisdiction had already passed the order dated 24th December, 1969 in Revision Petition No. 71 of 1969 titled as Bashir Ahmad etc. v. Farman Ali, therefore, he possessed no jurisdiction to proceed in. the matter. It is pertinent to note that revision filed by Bashir Abmad who was a purchaser from Abdul Karim and Abdul Qadeer, allottees of land at R L‑11 Khata No. 188 was dismissed. The net result of dismissal of the revision petition was that the appellate order of Additional Settlement Commissioner accepting the appeal "of Farman Ali against Abdul Karim and Abdul Qadeer in respect of land measuring 86 Kanals held the field. The writ petition is liable to succeed on the short ground that whereas Farman Ali respondent No. 1 challenged the allotment in respect of 86 Kanals of land made in favour of Abdul Karim and Abdul Qadeer at R L‑II Khata No. 188 vide order dated 7th June, 1977, he failed to challenge the order of allotment of 40 Kanals of land in favour of Mst. Jiwni vide order of the D. S. C. (Land) dated 7th July, 1967. Respondent No. 1 by failing to assail order of allotment in favour of Mst. Jiwni thus allowed it to become final. He accepted the order and acquiesced in the same. It is evident from the record that Mst. Jiwni or present petitioners were not even impleaded as parties by respondent No. 1 in appeal or in the revisional proceedings which culminated in the order dated 24th December, 1969. The petitioners of Mst. Jiwni were also not parties in Mukhbri proceedings under section 10/1.1 of the Displaced Persons Land Settlement Act which were confined between Muhammad Idrees and Farman Ali.

5. The application as well as prayer of Farman Ali before respondent No. 3 that Mutation should be ordered to be sanctioned in his favour even in respect of 40 Kanals of land allotted to Mst. Jiwni on Khat No. 189 on the analogy of order of Additional Settlement Commissioner dated 28th January, 1969 in respect of R L‑11 Khata No. 188 and on the basis of order dated 10th February 1976 was totally misconceived and ill‑merited. Consequently, respondent No. 3 as a revenue officer possessed no jurisdiction to ignore the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner (Land) dated 7th July, 1969 which had attained finality in law. Equally he possessed no jurisdiction whatsoever in the year 1978 to ignore the final order of Settlement Authorities under the Displaced Persons Land Settle ment Act in his capacity as notified officer. He was wholly incompetent to confer benefits on respondent No. 1 Farman Ali to which he was clearly not entitled. The mere fact that Farman Ali had challenged the allotment in respect of R L‑II Khata No. 188 which was confined to an area of 8 Kanals allotted in favour of a different party could not lay the foundation for a collateral attack on the orders to which finality was attained by yaw. Such an order could not be ignored on the analogy of partial success of Farman Ali qua 'a third party.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent attempted to argue that respondent No. 3 was a notified officer under the Evacuee Property Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975 was competent to ignore the order of allotment in favour of Mst. Jiwni because, according to trim, this order, order was void. According to the learned counsel for the respon dent a land in the temporary allotment of a Jammu & Kashmir Refugee could not have been allotted to claimant displaced persons. The objection is not sustainable for the short and simple reason that Farman Ali by failing to challenge the order of confirmation of 40 Kanals of land in favour of Mst. Jiwnl, allowed that order to become final. =This was conscious act and he cannot now be permitted to make a collateral attack after over a decade. Even if it is assumed that respondent No. 3 was a notified officer, there were no proceedings pending before him since before the repeal of the Displaced Persons Land Settlement Act and thus he was wholly incompetent to set aside or ignore the order passed by a competen settlement authority long before the repeal of the Act. At any rate respondent No. 3 was misdirected in trying to extend the scope of order d9 ad 10th February, 1976 which was nothing more than an order of dismissal of Mukhbri application for want of jurisdiction. Similarly, he completely lacked jurisdiction to extend the scope of the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner, dated 28th January, 1969 which was confined to R L‑11, Khata No. 188 in respect of an area of 86 Kanals. The petitioners were also not parties to any of these proceedings. The impugned order, therefore, is completely without jurisdiction. The writ petition is accordingly accepted and the impugned proceedings and order of the respondent No. 3 dated 23rd February, 1978 is declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

M. Y. H. 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.