Find a Lawyer

Writ Petitions Nos. 687‑R, 1233‑R of 1976 and 1076‑R of 1975, decided on 26th June, 1979.

‑‑ Art. 199 and Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act (XLVII of 1958), S. 12‑Constitutional petition‑Delay‑Provisional Transfer Orders made in 1960 challenged in 1975 when alleged fraud came to light after investigation‑Delay in filing writ petition, held, not "inordinate".‑[Delay].

‑‑‑S. 12 and Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑Transfer of property‑Fraud‑Deputy Settlement Commissioner reserving area on fake applications for reservation in favour of contesting respondents‑Bogus Provisional Transfer Orders were followed by Permanent Transfer Deeds‑After enquiry Deputy Settlement Com missioner admitting that he had after retirement signed ante dated many transfer orders‑Cases of' transfer of similar nature already pending adjudication before concerned Dy. Settlement Commissioner ‑ Disposal of applications for reservations filed same day without inquiry‑Provisional Transfer Orders bearing numbers which were neither printed nor issued by Head Office until six years later, making matter eminently suitable for inquiry Cases remitted by High Court to Member, Board of Revenue concerned for entrusting same to a competent officer for decision afresh in accordance with law.

Sh. Muhammad Nasim for Petitioners.

Raja Aziz‑ud‑Din Ahrnad for Respondent No. 1.

Sh. Ghias Muhammad and Munir A. Sheikh for Respondent No. 2.

Date of hearing : 26th June, 1979.

This order will dispose of Writ Petitions Nos. 687/R/76; 1233/R/76 and 1067/R/75 as these arise in similar circumstances.

2. According to the case of the petitioners they were made temporary allotments of urban agricultural land (as shown in the. Special Jamabandi for the year 1946‑47) in Village Piran Ghaib, Tehsil and District Jhelum. On verification of their claims, their temporary allotments were adjusted to the extent of their entitlements in March, 1960 and in the last case on 26th July, 1960. They have remained in possession of the land since their temporary allotments and entries exist in the revenue record. It is stated that to 1975 it transpired that in the fake applications for reservation, the areas were reserved the same day in favour of the then applicants by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner. Bogus Provisional Transfer Orders were issued followed by Permanent Transfer Deeds. When fraud came in light, after enquiry one Sufi Ghuiam Mohyuddin was put to trial before a Martial Law Court where, on pardon being granted the Deputy Settlement Commissioner who had ordered reservations and signed Provisional Transfer Orders stated that all the orders of reservations have, after his retirement been ante‑dated by him. The accused was convicted for five years R. 1. and a fine of Rupees three lacs and in default to undergo further six months' R. I. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner concerned has appeared with record and stated about the above and further stated that he is enquiring into about 130 cases ,,of bogus orders of reservations and fake Provisional Transfer Orders. In one of the cases W. P. No. 687/R/76, the transferee has filed a written statement saying that he never filed any application for reservation nor, obtained any transfer order. In W. P. 1067/R/75, learned counsel for respondents . Nos. 9 to 13 had submitted that the said respondents have purchased some areas from the petitioner No. 4 and on the spot the petitioners and the said respondents have built their houses. Learned counsel for the petitioners has pointed out that the Provisional Transfer Orders issued to the transferee respondents in 1962 were printed and issued in the year 1968, meaning thereby that the Provisional Transfer Orders issued to the transferee respondents were bogus altogether.

2. Learned counsel for the contesting respondents have submitted that the transfer orders were made in favour of the said respondents in the year 1960 and the petitions filed in 1975 suffer from ]aches. It is also submitted that there was a ceiling of 2J acres in the urban area and the petitioners could not have been made allotments in excess thereof. It is also submitted that some of the Khasra Nos. transferred to the respondents have never been in the allotments of the petitioners.

3. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the ceiling did not apply to the confirmation of the temporary allotments vide para. 24 of the Supplementary Scheme No. 11 as well as memo. issued on behalf of the Chief Settlement and Rehabili tation Commissioner bearing No. 7927‑59/65‑R (P), dated 6th January, 1960.

4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record with their assistance, it is clear that the matter of transfer in favour of the contesting respondents does require enquiry. The fact that the petitions have been filed in 1975 and the transfer orders were made in favour of the contesting respondents in the year 1960 does not amount to inordinate delay for the reason that the alleged fraud of transfer in favour of respondents came to light only in 1975 when investigation was made and it transpired, during the trial' that the Deputy Settlement Commissioner who had signed the transfer orders in. favour of the contes ting respondents admitted that he had, ‑ after his retirement, ante‑dated many transfer orders. The cases of transfer of similar nature are already pending adjudication before the Deputy Settlement Commissioner concerned. The unusual disposal of applications for reservation, without enquiry, the same day the application was made, and the Provisional Trans fer Orders bearing Nos, which were neither printed nor issued by the Head Office until six years later make the matter eminently suitable for enquiry.

In this view of the matter, these cases are remitted to the learned Member, Board of Revenue (Settlement and Rehabilitation Wing) for entrust ment to a competent Officer for fresh decision in accordance with law, but, in view of the fact that some of the transferees have passed on the . area through association to other respondents, there shall be no order as to costs.

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.