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.831/R of 1975, decided on 5th February, 1984.
---Ss.10 & 11--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199--Allotment of land--Settlement Authority cancelling major portion of allotment on application of respondents--Plea of re-verification of claim by allottee rejected by Settlement Authority--Such plea appeared to be just and right that claim of petitioner be verified with reference to original record from India--Units be calculated on basis thereof and area to the extent of entitlement of claimant should be allowed to stand adjusted in such allotment--Constitutional petition allowed and matter remitted to Settlement Authority with direction to act according to law and parties should be allowed to raise all pleas available to them under law.
Ch. Qadir Bakhsh and Muhammad Rafique Khan for Petitioners.
Ch. Muhammad Nazir Ahmed for Respondent No.1
Muhammad Hassan for Respondents Nos.2 to 9
Nemo for Respondent No. 10.
Date of hearing: 5th February, 1984.
Allotment was made in the name of petitioner No.l of land measuring 1100 Kanals and 11 Marlas at Khata No.453 of R.L.II in Chak No.35-R.B., Tehsil and District Sheikhupura on 6-11-1965. On 29-3-1974, respondents Nos.3 to 9 filed an application under section 10/11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958. The Additional Settlement Commissioner/ Chief Settlement Commissioner took up the matter. The petitioners applied for sending the claim form back to the Central Record Office for reverification but without success. They also requested the Officer on Special Duty of the Central Record Office for supply of the copy of the Special Jamabandi. This was declined. The Additional Settlement Commissioner/ Chief Settlement Commissioner found that the petitioner was entitled to 2800 units and the allotment for 8804 units was wrong. He directed the excess allotment to be cancelled and allotted to the respondents. This is vide order dated 28-7-1975. Hence, this Constitutional petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the excess has been found on the ground that the Chak Tashkees of the claimant was Hathiar and not Rohi as it had appeared from the Special Jamabandi received from India and that alone should have been relied upon. Secondly, that the Officer on Special Duty of Central Record Office had no right to order any change in the entries of the Special Jamabandi and certainly not without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners which was not done. It was also illegal that the Additional Settlement Commissioner would not get the claim reverified as requested by the petitioners nor the Officer of the Central Record Office would allow a copy of the relevant Jamabandi.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the Settlement Department has submitted that the matter may be remanded to the Notified Officer for fresh decision with reference to original record.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents Nos.3 to 9 has pointed out that according to the calculation of the land abandoned by the claimant as would appear from Annexure 'A' Mazrua area was 2464 units and of Ghair Mazrua 1234 units which will add upto 2587 units whereas in the 6th column, the last figure has been shown as 8587 which is clearly an interpolation. The figure of 2 has been changed to 8. Learned counsel for the respondents also contended that in R.L.II itself, Had Bast mentioned was Hathiar and it was not agitated against.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it appears to be just and right that the claim of petitioner No.l be verified with reference to the original record received from India, units calculated on the basis thereof, and the area to the extent of the entitlement o the claimant should be allowed to stand adjusted in the allotment made. In the proceedings to be taken the parties should be allowed to raise all pleas available to them under the law. The learned Officer should decide the matter afresh. He will keep in view that the genuine claimant are allowed their rights. The petition is, therefore, allowed and the matter is remitted to the learned Member, Board of Revenue/Chic Settlement Commissioner for entrustment to a Notified Officer for doing the needful. In the circumstances, the parties shall bear their own 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