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. 106-R of 1977, decided on 8th April, 1985.
---Ss. 10 & 11--Allotment--Cancellation of--Admittedly land in dispute was allotted to petitioner's father--Purported allotment in favour of respondent had been denied by petitioner through application, affidavit and by statement of his own son--Petitioners, held, entitled to land in question even if it had been cancelled at some stage because their claims stood adjusted on their R.L.11--Petitioners, were entitled to restoration and peaceful enjoyment of their confirmed allotment made quarter of century ago in circumstances.
Ch. Ghulam Mujtaba for Petitioners. Muhammad Nazeer Ahmad for Respondents. Respondents Nos. 5 to 7 and 9: ex parte. Nemo for Respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 10. Date of hearing: 8th April, 1985.
The petitioner's father was confirmed land at RL.11, 646 in village Devidaspura, Tehsil Bhalwal, District Sargodha, on 7-11-1961. The land was under mortgage. Time to time, it was considered that the land was allotable or not. At one time, the allotment from the name of the petitioners' father Ghulam Qadir was cancelled on 10-10-1964. It was then shown to have been allotted to Abdul, respondent No. 2, on 6-11-1965.
2. The case of the petitioners is that the allotment of land which was under mortgage and which was once cancelled being not allotable restored in their favour as instructions were issued by the Chief Settlement Commissioner that such lands were allotable and the allotment be restored. The petitioners having not got the land back filed an application under section 10/11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 against the allotment at R.L.l1 678 in the name of respondent No. 2. An application was filed on behalf of the respondent No. 2 that he had not obtained the allotment. A statement was also made by his son saying that he was the attorney of his father and that the allotment at Khata No. 678 in his father's name, he did not know anything about it nor, got the allotment. An affidavit of Abdul, respondent No. 2, was also filed to the same effect which is dated 3-9-1976. However, the Additional Settlement Commissioner vide order dated 24-11-1976 observed that the land was confirmed to the petitioners on 21-114961 which was cancelled from their Khata No. 678 vide order dated 6-10-1965 and the same land was allotted to Abdul, respondent No. 2. The contention of the petitioners that the land had been-restored in their favour was not borne out from the record nor the counsel had been able to produce any proof. He thus, dismissed their application vide order dated 24-11-1976. Hence, this Constitutional petition.
3. The admitted position is that the land was allotted to the petitioners' father on 21-11-1961. The purported allotment in favour of respondent No. 2 on 6-10-1965 had beer. denied by him through an application, affidavit and by the statement of his own son. In these circumstances, the petitioners were entitled to the land even if it had been cancelled at some stage because their claims stood adjusted on their R.L.II. A
4. In view of the above, the impugned order is set aside and declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The petitioners shall be entitled to the restoration and peaceful enjoyment of their confirmed allotment made quarter of a century ago i.e. on 7-11-1961. The petition is accordingly, disposed of but in the circumstances the parties are left to bear their own costs.
H. B. T. Petition accepted.