Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition No. 156 of 1983, decided on, 16th March, 1983.

(On appeal from the judgment dated 1‑2‑1983 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Writ Petition No. 754/R of 1978).

----Art. 185 (3)‑Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme, para. 11‑Leave to appeal granted to consider question whether circumstances of case were such wherein it could be held that condition precedent for invoking provisions of para. 11 of Scheme in relation to fixing maxi mum area for allotment of land to various claimants were met‑Parties given liberty to add further documents if any and interim order of status quo already passed ordered to continue.

Zaki‑ud‑Din Pal, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

S. M. Zaffar, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 16th March 1983.

This petition is directed against the order of a learned Single Judge of the High Court passed on 1‑2‑1983 dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioner.

The question involved in this case is whether the order of the Rehabili tation and Settlement authorities, which was upheld by the High Court, is indeed in accord with the provisions of para. 11 of the Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme. Paragraph 11 of the Scheme is as follows :‑

"Ratable distribution of land among allottees.‑In case where claimants of land under the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme, whether in conges ted or non congested Chak, cannot be accommodated in the estates in which they held temporary allotments on the plea that the land is not sufficient to meet the claims of all the allottees‑claimants for the particular estate, all available land should be individually allotted to the entire group of allottee‑claimants in a particular estate for which a separate maximum should be fixed for each estate based on the extent of the availability of land. The allotees found entitled to allotments beyond that maximum should be accommodated on evacuee land that may be found available in other villages . . . . . ."

It is an admitted position that on 3‑6‑1960 when the ban on allotments in Chak No. 44‑N. B. Tehsil and District Sargodha was lifted there were only six sitting allottees in the said land and 15 other persons whose claims stood transferred to it. The claims of these 21 persons could be fully adjusted in the area available and there was, therefore, no need for fixing a separate maxi mum of land to be allotted to each claimant, if their claims were to be ad justed on that date.

The learned Settlement Commissioner, however, has observed that the petitioner herein had in his own application, while seeking transfer of his claim to this Chak, stated that there were 41 persons who had applied for allot ment in Chak No. 44‑N.B, and also observed that as many as 59 claims were subsequently transferred to the Chak for adjustment there.

The question whether in face of the fact that on 23‑6‑1960 there were only 6 sitting allottees in the Chak and only 15 persons whose claims stood trans ferred to the Chak, the circumstance that in a recital in the application sub mitted by the petitioner to the effect that there were more applicants than this number, who had applied for allotment in the Chak and that subsequently 59 claims were in fact transferred to it, were circumstances wherein it could' be held that the conditions precedent for invoking the provisions of para. 11 of the Scheme it relation to fixing a maximum area for allotment of land of the various claimants, were met, requires further consideration.

Leave granted.

Security in the sum of Rs. 2,500.

The appeal to be made ready on the present record with liberty to the parties to add further documents, if any. The appeal shall be set down for hearing at a very early date.

The interim order of status quo passed on 21‑2‑1983 to continue meanwhile.

M. Z. M. Leave granted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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