Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Writ Petition No. 511/R of 1982, decided on 2nd February, 1985.
.
---Ss. 10 & 11--Bogus allotment cancelled on petitioners' application- Petitioners, however, were not held entitled to allotment in view of entire register of estate being doubtful, move having been made for border comparison--Plea of Settlement Authority that case of petitioners was being pursued but they had not appeared before Authority--If petitioners personally appear before Authority and show Fard-e-Haqiat issued to them earlier, allotment would be made to such petitioners- Allotment, held, would not be made if petitioners do not appear personally and prove their identity that they were genuine persons--Impugned order to extent of disentitling petitioners to allotment was set aside being without lawful authority and of no legal effect--Petitioners were directed to appear before authority personally for identification and production of earlier verification of claim--In case claimants appear before Authority they would be allotted land if not earlier disposed of--Petition was allowed in circumstances.
Ch. Muhammad Abdullah for Petitioner.
Ch. Muhammad Nazir Ahmad for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 2nd February, 1985.
The petitioner's application under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 succeeded and the bogus allotment was cancelled. However, they were not held entitled to allotment because of the statement of Naib-Tehsildar, Central Record Office dated 25-4-1982 that the area was entered in the names of the claimants in the register but the entire register of the estate i.e. village Katla Haitri, appeared to be doubtful for which reason move had been made for border comparison. This is vide order dated 26-4-1982. The petitioners have challenged this order.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the expectations of the Central Record Office to have border comparison with India is unreasonable and not within the realm of possibilities. The petitioners' claim having been verified, they should have been allowed allotment.
3. Learned counsel for the Settlement Department has submitted chat the case is being pursued by the attorney and the claimants have not appeared, nor, have they appeared in this Court when they were directed to appear. However, if the petitioners personally appear before the Allotting authority and show the Fard-e-Haqiat issued to them earlier, the petitioners will be made allotment but in no case the allotment shall be made if the claimants do not appear personally and prove their identity that they are the genuine persons.
4. In view of the above, the impugned order is set aside to the extent that it disentitles the petitioners to allotment being without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The petitioners are directed to appear before the relevant authorities personally and produce the earlier verification of their claim. If they do so, they shall be allotted the land in question if not earlier disposed of. The petition is thus allowed. In the circumstances there shall be-no order as to costs.
A. A.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer