Find a Lawyer

Writ Petitions Nos. 655/11 and 680/11 of 1975, heard on 24th April, 1985.

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

---Ss. 10 & 11--Cancellation of allotment by Settlement Authority- Jurisdiction --Mukhbari applications--Bona fide of disposal of such applications--Unusual haste with which Mukhbari applications were taken and culminated, held, did not inspire much of confidence--In cancelling confirmed allotment Settlement Authority acted beyond authority delegated to him--Such delegated authority was not to interfere in confirmed allotment on ground of miscalculation of units--Such Authority did not even implead necessary parties who had since purchased land from confirmed allottee--Impugned order being clearly arbitrary and without lawful authority was declared to be of no consequence--However, arrangement of parties with regard to such land by their own consent was given effect to--Specified Khasra numbers as mutually agreed by parties in term of agreement were to be retained by such parties having been specified in Aks Shajra, signed by such parties in Court.

Maqbool Sadiq for Petitioner.

Alamgir for the Settlement Department.

Nemo for Respondent No. 3.

A.R. Shaukat for Respondents Nos. 4 and 5.

Ch. Muhammad Hassan for legal heirs of Respondents Nos. 6 and 7.

Dates of hearing: 23rd and 24th April, 1985.

This judgment will dispose of Writ Petition No. 655-R of 1975 and Writ Petition No. 680-R of 1975.

2. Mst. Abida Begum wife of Habib-ur-Rehman was allotted on R.L.11 No. 66 of village Chahet Bhag Mal, Tehsil and District Sheikhupura, land measuring 61 Kanals 12 Marlas bearing Khasra Nos. 28 (8K-18M), 311 (6K), 312(4K-9M), 314 (8K-18M), 315, (8K-18M), 316 (8K-18M), 339 (2K-4M), 340 (8K-18M) and 341 (4K-9M) total 61 Kanals 12 Marlas, by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner on 16-6-1966. This allotment was made in lieu of urban 171 P.I. Us. Proceedings under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, were initiated or, applications, dated 14-2-1974 and 20-3-1974. The Additional Settlement Commissioner exercising the powers of the Chief Settlement Commissioner came to the conclusion that the area allotted was under valued in terms of P.1.Us. For it, instead of 171 PA.Us. the area allotted was worth 615 P.I. Us. So holding, lie allowed the allotment to remain intact of Khasra Nos. 28 (8K-18M), 311 (6K-2M), 339 (2K-4M), measuring 17 Kanals 2 Marlas and cancelled the rest of the allotment bearing Khasra Nos. 312 (4K-9M), 314 (8K-18M), 315 (8K-18M), 316 (8K-18M), 340 (8K-18M), 341 (4K-9M) measuring 44 Kanals 10 Marlas. He directed that the allotment of the cancelled area may be made firstly to the first informant Mst. Afzaal Begum etc. and thereafter to Nawabzadi Jahangira Begum etc. in lieu of their pending units. This is vide order, dated 20-6-1974. Out of the cancelled land, Mst. Afzaal Begum and Muhammad Begum respondents Nos. 4 and 5 in the first petition were allotted land measuring 12 Kanals 3 Marlas in Khasra No. 314 (8K-18M) and 312 (3K-5M) on 24-6-1974. Nawahzadi Jahangira Begum respondent No. 6 in the said petition (since deceased and represented by legal heirs) was allotted land measuring 18 Kanals 2 Marlas bearing Khasra Nos. 316 (8K-18M), 315 (8K-18M) and 312-Min (6M) on 27-5-1975.

3. Against the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner/ Chief Settlement Commissioner, dated 20-6-1974, the afore-titled two writ petitions were filed, first by Khalid Mahmood claiming to be purchaser of Khasra No. 311 (6K) and 312 (4K-9M) all told 10 Kanals 9 Marlas from the claimant allottee Mst. Abida Begum and it was contended that he was neither impleaded as a party nor was heard before the impugned order was passed. The second petition has been filed by Messrs Zahid Modern Rice and General Mills and Sh. Fazal Elahi; challenging the same order claiming to have purchased Khasra Nos. 314 (8K-18M), 315 (8K-18M), and 340 (8K-18M) measuring 26 Kanals 14 Marlas and Khasra Nos. 316 (8K-18M), 339 (2K-4M), 341 (4K-9M) measuring 15 Kanals 11 Marlas through registered sale-deed, dated 30-12-1968 and 21-12-1968 respectively. The contention on their behalf is that the calculation made at the time of allotment of P.I. Us. of the area allotted was correct and further than for miscalculation of units the delegatee of the Chief Settlement Commissioner was not entitled to interfere in the confirmed allotment because the Chief Settlement Commissioner had already issued instructions not to re-open such cases.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners on instructions of the petitioners and on his own authority stated that in pursuance of the impugned order, the allotments made in favour of the respondents Nos. 4 to 7 in the first petition and respondents Nos. 3 to 6 in the second petition to avoid litigation may be allowed to remain intact and the petitioners would lay no claim to the areas allotted to the aforesaid respondents. This will be subject to adjustment of the areas which shall be mentioned a little later.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the aforesaid respondents having been allowed to retain the allotments made in favour of their clients can have no grouse to oppose the petition.

6. Learned counsel for the Settlement Department, of course, justified the order but in view of the statement of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the fact that the allotments made in favour of respondents Nos. 4 to 7 in the first petition and respondents Nos. 3 to 6 in the other, are not being questioned by the learned counsel for the petitioners and that all concerned are being settled, his opposition to the petition evaporates in the air.

7. The essential facts are that the land was confirmed to Mst. Abida Begum in the year 1966. She sold the land to various persons including the petitioners. Effect was given in the relevant official documents. Nobody demurred until few months before the repeal of all the Mukhbari applications were instituted on 14-2-1974 and 20-3-1974, both of which were taken up by an Additional Settlement Commissioner and in 3/4 months' time he cancelled the confirmed allotment of long standing and the cancelled land was allotted to the informants very soon. The unusual haste with which the Mukhbari applications were taken and culminated do not inspire much of confidence. Otherwise too, he acted beyond the authority delegated to him which was not to interfere in confirmed allotment on the ground of miscalculation of units and he exactly did that. In the hurry, he did not even implead the necessary parties.

8. In view of what has been stated above, the impugned order is p clearly arbitrary and without lawful authority. It is so declared. However, in view of the statement of the learned counsel for the petitioners, the allotments made in favour of respondents Nos. 4 to 7 in the first petition and respondents Nos. 3 to 6 in the other, in pursuance of the aforesaid order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner/ Chief Settlement Commissioner, dated 20-6-1974, shall remain intact and the petitioners shall have no claim thereto.

9. As regards the actual areas allotted to the said respondents, it is agreed to by their learned counsel and by the learned counsel for the petitioners that adjustments may be allowed to leave the each set of respondents with a compact block. The area allotted to respondents Nos. 4 and 5 is 12 Kanals 3 Marlas situated in Khasra Nos. 314 (8K-18M) and 312 (3K-5M). In lieu of this, the learned counsel for the said respondents Nos. 4 and 5 stated that if the respondents are given 4 Kanals 9 Marlas in Khasra No. 341, 7 Kanals 14 Marlas in Khasra No. 340 all told 12K 3M, that will constitute one compact block and the respondents Nos. 4 and 5 will be satisfied.

10. Learned counsel appearing for respondents Nos. 6 and 7 has submitted that respondent No. 6 was allotted area measuring 18 Kanals 2 Marlas situated in Khasra No.316 (8K-18M), 315 (8K-18M) and 312-Min (6M) all told 18 Kanals 2 Marlas. The learned counsel for the said respondents states that if instead of the land in the aforesaid Khasra numbers, respondent No. 6 to whom these were allotted, she is given Khasra No. 316 measuring 8 Kanals 18 Marlas and Khasra No. 315 measuring 8 Kanals 18 Marlas and 6 Marlas adjacent to Khata No. 315 from Khasra No. 339 all told 18K 2M, he will be satisfied. The areas so asked for by the learned counsel for. respondents Nos. 4 to 7 in the first petition, the learned counsel for the petitioners states that he has no objection; rather he is willing that these may be retained by the said respondents in lieu of their allotments and the petitioners shall have no claim whatsoever in 'respect of these Khasra numbers.

11. In view of what has been stated above, the impugned order is set aside. The respondents Nos. 4 and 5 in lieu of their allotments will have an area measuring 4 Kanals 9 Marlas in Khasra No. 314 and 7 Kanals 14 Marlas in Khasra No. 340 all told 12 Kanal 3 Marlas. The respondent No. 6 to whom the allotment had been made will in lieu thereof have Khasra No. 361 (8K-18M) and 315 (8K-18M) and adjacent 6 Marlas from Khasra No. 339 all told 18 Kanal 2 Marlas. On these areas, the petitioners shall have no claim. These two petitions are thus allowed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Corresponding entries shall be made by the relevant authorities in their records.

12. This judgment has been dictated in the presence of the learned counsel for the parties and Aks Shajra signed by them is placed on the record.

A.A.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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