Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition No. 660 of 1983, decided on 21st February, 1984.

(On appeal from the judgment dated 7‑2‑1983 of the Lahore High Court in 1. C . A . No. 254 of 1982) .

Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑

‑‑‑Arts.185(3) & 199‑‑Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act (XLVII of 1958), S.10 read with Scrutiny of Claims (Evacuee Property) Regulation, 1961 (M.L.R. No.89)‑‑Order allotting land in favour of respondents found by Enquiry Officer to be genuine and not forged one‑‑Such finding accepted by Board of Revenue and in light thereof mutations in favour of petitioner set aside‑‑Factual inquiry for ascertaining genuine or forged nature of order in dispute, held, could not be made by High Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction‑‑Leave to appeal refused.

Zaki‑ud‑Din Pal, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Salahuddin, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.

Rana Muhammad Sarwar, Advocate Supreme Court and M.A. Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 21st February, 1984.

‑‑ One Abdul Azim Khan, a claimant displaced person from a non‑agreed area of India, was allotted 3,680 Kanals 7 Marlas of land (equivalent to 31,606 P.I. Units) in village Bhulerian, Tehsil Chunian, District Kasur in August, 1959. Out of this area, Abdul Azim Khan got 2,162 Kanals 16 Marlas cancelled on the ground that this was an inferior quality of land and some better land may be given to him in exchange thereof. Accordingly, by an order dated 13th March, 1960, 2,162 Kanals 6 Marlas, aforementioned, was I cancelled by a Rehabilitation authority and it ordered that Abdul Azim khan be compensated there for. It is admitted on all hands that if an order in the above terms was, indeed, passed on the 13th March, 1960 by a Rehabilitation authority canceling the aforementioned area 2,162 Kanals 6 Marlas, the same reverted to the Compensation Pool and became available for allotment to the displaced persons.

It appears, however, that before any other land could be allotted to the aforesaid Abdul Azim Khan, the Scrutiny of Claims (Evacuee Property) Regulation (MLR No.89) was promulgated on 23rd August, 1961. In pursuance of the provisions of this Regulation, the entitlement of Abdul Azim Khan was reduced to 5,355 P.I. Units against which he could only be allotted 698 Kanals 8 Marlas of land out of the 1,518 Kanals 1 Marla which may be left with him after the cancellation of an area 2,162 Kanals 6 Marlas out of his earlier allotment 3,680 Kanals 7 Marlas and he was obliged to surrender the balance of 819 Kanals 13 Marlas out of the aforesaid 1,518 Kanals 1 Marla of land. The said land, which was surrendered, was to vest, under the provision of M.L.R.No.89 (Para. 9 of the Regulation) in the Provincial Government. Out of this surrendered land, after allowing the allottee to purchase some part of it, the remaining surrendered land was to vest in the Provincial Government. and became available for allotment to the tenants sitting on the land.

The dispute before us is between the petitioners who are sitting tenants of the area which stood allotted to Abdul Azim Khan in August, 1959 and Respondents Nos. 5 to 7, who were allotted some part of this land against their verified claim on 7th April, 1969.

It appears that 2,162 Kanals 6 Marlas of land, which was cancelled from the allotment of Abdul Azim Khan by the order, dated 13th March, 1960 was allotted to Respondents Nos. 5 to 7 against their verified claims on 7th April, 1969. However, in the meantime, as Abdul Azim Khan had also to surrender a part of the allotted land after the enforcement of M.L.R.No.89, the Revenue authorities treating the entire area excluded from his earlier allotment of 3,680 Kanals 7 Marlas after deducting 698 Kanals 8 Marlas of land allotted which was found to be his true entitlement under M.L.R. No.89 and retained by him, was mutated in favour of the petitioners treating it to be surrendered land on 31st March, 1979. The Respondents Nos. 5 to 7 represented against this action of the revenue authorities on the ground that the land had already been allotted to them on 7th April, 1969. An inquiry into this dispute was held by the Rehabilitation & Settlement Commissioner in pursuance of the order of the Member, Board of Revenue (Rehabilitation & Settlement). The issue before the inquiry officer was whether the order, dated 13th March, 1960 being relied upon by Respondents Nos. 5 to 7, according to which 2,162 Kanals 6 Marlas of land was cancelled by the Rehabilitation Authorities, was a genuine order because, if it was so. the land clearly reverted to the compensation pool and was available for allotment to Respondents Nos.5 to 7 or whether it was a forged and ante‑dated order as contended by the petitioners herein, in which case, this land also stood surrendered under the M.L.R.89 and was available to be given to the petitioners.

The inquiry officer, after hearing both the parties, held that the order dated 13th March, 1960 was a genuine order and not a forged one; therefore, the allotment made in favour of Respondents Nos.5 to 7 was legal and valid. The said finding was accepted by the Member, Board of Revenue in the light thereof and set aside the mutations in favour of the petitioners herein. The above orders were challenged by the petitioners by filing a writ petition, which failed. They then filed an Intra‑Court Appeal, which also remained unsuccessful. Hence this petition for leave to appeal. The learned counsel for the petitioners again attempted to argue before us that the order dated 13th March, 1960 was a forged and an ante‑dated order. But, as held by the High Court, a factual inquiry for ascertaining the genuine or forged nature of the order, dated 31‑3‑1960 cannot be made by the High Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. The learned Judges of the High Court went on to add that as a result of the inquiry conducted by the Revenue Department it was clear that "the land allotted to Respondents Nos. 5 to 7 was the one whose allotment standing in the name of Abdul Aziz Khan had been cancelled and not the one which has been surrendered under M.L.R.No.89".

We entirely agree. There is, thus, no force in this petition which is hereby dismissed.

S, Q, 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.