Find a Lawyer

Writ Petitions Nos. 232, 441 and 1244 of 1981, decided on 13th October, 1984.

---Provisional Constitution Order (1 of 1981), Art. 9--Temporary allottees of evacuee land--Petitioners, claimant displaced, persons and in possession of land in dispute as temporary allottees--Temporary allottee of evacuee land, held, had no right to oblige Rehabilitation and Settlement Authorities to allot and permanently settle such land against their claims--Land claimed by petitioners no longer part of compensation pool and losing its evacuee character and was State land--Claim of petitioner against such land, held, could not be accepted--Petition being without merits, dismissed--Provisional Constitution Order(1 of 1981), Art.9.

P L D 1971 Lah. 664 rel.

Ch. Qadir Bakhsh and Asif Fasih-ud-Din for Petitioners.

Ch. Mahmoodul Hassan for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 29th September, 1984.

This judgment will dispose of writ petitions Nos. 232/81, 444/81 and 1244/81 as common questions of law and fact are involved.

2. The petitioners involved in these writ petitions are claimant displaced persons and are in possession of the land in dispute as temporary allottees. This land is part of 5,231 Acres of land which was transferred to State in exchange for 7,150 Acres of State land, by a notification issued on 3-1-1958, because it was acquired for extension of Faisalabad Town, then known as Lyallpur. The petitioners challenged the orders of Colony Assistant /Collector, Faisalabad of 28-10-1980, resuming the land in favour of the State, on the ground that the land is still evacuee and that they are entitled to its transfer. In this connection the petitioners rely on the judgment of this Court in the case of Mst. Ghulam Fatima and others v. Government of Pakistan and others (W.P. No. 722-R of 1972) which was followed later in Civil Revision No. 1826-R of 1982. Reliance is also placed by the petitioners on the judgment of this Court in Intra-Court Appeal No. 185/75 in which the appeal preferred by the Province of Punjab was dismissed in limine.

3. The judgment in I.C.A. No. 185/75 is distinguishable from the facts of the present case. It was found in this appeal that the orders passed by the High Court as a result of the compromise between the parties having been implemented by a Settlement Commissioner, they could not be cancelled by another Settlement Commissioner and that the High Court had rightly interfered as the orders passed by the first Settlement Commissioner had the attribute of a consent order and was not open to challenge. As regards the judgment in writ petition No. 722-R of 1972, it is again distinguishable as the petitioners in that writ petition were confirmed allottees, while the present petitioners enjoy only a temporary allotment. This judgment itself makes this distinction while referring to W.P. No. 377-R of 1972. I have gone through the latter judgment as well. The judgments in the two writ petitions were delivered by the same Honourable Judge, on the same day i.e. 12-11-1976. Since the case of the present petitioners is akin to the case of petitioners in Writ Petition No. 377-R of 1972, there is no reason why the decision in Writ Petition No. 377-R of 1972 should not be followed in the present case. It was clearly held that the temporary allottees of evacuee land around Lyallpur, measuring 5,235 Acres had no statutory right to oblige the Rehabilitation or Settlement Authorities to allot and permanently settle the same land against their claims. A similar view was expressed in Writ Petition No. 113-R of 1972, decided on 10-8-1972, when it was found that the land in dispute was no longer part of the compensation pool. The decision in W.P. No. 1792 of 1966 was followed in this case. Muhammad Yaqub's case is a reported judgment P L D 1971 Lah. 664. It reiterates the same proposition.

4. It is argued by the learned counsel that on account of their continuous occupation, they may be permitted to purchase this land under the latest Scheme. I am afraid this argument also does not offer a better promise to the petitioners, as the latest Scheme refers to available evacuee land, which the land in dispute is not. It lost its evacuee character long ago and is now State land like any other State land. The learned counsel also tried to invoke the notification of 3-9-1979 issued by Punjab Government. This notification is, however, not applicable to the present cases, because it relates to grant of proprietary rights to temporary lessees of State land located outside the prohibited Zone. This land or the petitioners do not fulfil any of these conditions.

In view of the above discussion, I find no merit in these writ petitions. They are dismissed, but there shall be no order as to costs.

M.Y.H. Petitions 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.