Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No. 1052-R of 1977, heard on 3rd June, 1985.

Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act (XLVII of 1958)--

---Ss. 10 & 11--Purchase of excess land--Allotment of land in favour of petitioner/ allot tee was upheld- -Mukhbari applications against petitioner dismissed--Petitioner was allowed to purchase land in excess--Held, there could be no grievance of petitioner to continue with litigation in circumstances--Petitioner directed to apply before Member, Board of Revenue/ Chief Settlement Commissioner and deposit price of land to complete purchase transaction in circumstances.

Muhammad Rafiq Khan for Petitioner.

Ch. Muhammad Nazir Ahmad for Respondent No.l.

Ch. Inayat Ullah Khan for Respondent No.2.

Date of hearing: 3rd June, 1985.

JUDGMENT

Petitioner and his brother Noorul Huda, after verification of their claims were made allotments in village Hardo Mughal Chak, Tehsil and District Gujranwala. One Mst. Najam-un-Nisa filed a Mukhbari application under Sections 10 and-11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958. The Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner (Land) held the enquiry, directed verification of the claim from the Central Record Office and ordered that if there be some excess allotment permission may be obtained from the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner for its sale to the allottee. This is vide order, dates 15-1-1964. In course of time the petitioner applied to the Chief Settlement Commissioner who, vide Memo No. 219/75/921-R(I.) , dated 30-6-1976, permitted the sale of the land in excess of the entitlement at the rate of Rs.100 per Produce Index Unit. The petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 1547-R of 1976 saying that the rate of sale should have been Rs.10 per Produce Index Unit. The petition was dismissed on 24-5-1977. He filed C.P.S.L.A. No. 436 of 1977 which was withdrawn on 18-4-1979. In the meanwhile Muhammad Din etc. filed separate Mukhbari applications under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958. The learned Settlement Commissioner/ Chief Settlement Commissioner came to the conclusion that "I have very minutely considered the arguments advanced by both the counsel and feel that actually the respondents have not committed any fraud. As regards the excess allotment made in good faith, the learned Chief Settlement Commissioner has been pleased to allow the respondents to purchase it at the rate of Rs; l00 per unit. The respondents desire to purchase it at the rate of Rs.40--per unit for which they have filed a writ petition. Keeping in view all the above facts, I feel the allegations of the petitioners are baseless and without any substance and as such dismiss all the three Mukhbari Petition. He proceeded further to observe as under:--

"However after the disposal of the Writ Petition and. in case of non-payment of to dues and withdrawal of the orders of purchase granted by the Chief Settlement Commissioner whichever is earlier land in dispute becomes available. Mir Zahid Ali, the senior most Mukhbari may be accommodated to the extent of his available units after checking his C.C.L. Form. Mohammad Din etc. being junior Mukhbar will have a right for the allotment of the land in dispute." This is vide order, dated 27-6-1977. This has been challenged by the petitioner through the afore-titled Constitutional petition filed on 2-8-1977. This was admitted for regular hearing on 3-8-1977.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that after the withdrawal of the C. P. S. L. A. No. 436 of 1977 on 18-4-1979 which was for reduction in the sale price from Rs.100 to Rs.10 per Produce Index Unit, the petitioner had filed an application before the Member, Board of Revenue/Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner/Chief Settlement Commissioner saying that the petitioner was prepared to pay the price of the excess allotment at the rate of Rs.100 per Produce Index Unit as earlier ordered by the Chief Settlement Commissioner on 30-6-1976. Learned counsel states that because of the pendency of this petition, the matter is not being finalized by the Chief Settlement Commissioner.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the Settlement Department Ch. Muhammad Nazir Ahmad, Advocate submitted that the proper thing for the petitioner is to withdraw this petition and deposit the price at the rate prescribed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner, vide his memo., dated 30-6-1976. Ch. Inayat Ullah Khan, Advocate for the respondent agrees thereto.

4. In all the circumstances of the case as narrated above, when the allotment is upheld, Mukhbari applications dismissed and the petitioner allowed to purchase the excess per order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner, dated 30-6-1976, there can be no grievance to continue with the litigation. The petitioner should apply before the Member, Board of Revenue/Chief Settlement Commissioner within a. month and deposit the price to be calculated by the Officer concerned within the next one month of the communication of the amount. All efforts must be done to complete the entire process within three months. The petition is accordingly disposed of but, in the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.

H.B.T.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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