Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition No.1323 of 1980, decided on 21st August, 1979.

(From the order dated 24‑5‑1980 of the Lahore High Court passed in Writ Petition No.492‑R of 1980).

‑‑‑Art.185(3)‑‑Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act (XLVII of 1958), S.10‑‑Allotment of land‑‑Both parties sitting allottees on equal footing‑ Entire land allotted to respondent‑‑Appellate Court distributing land between them proportionately‑‑Revisional order upsetting distribution maintained‑‑Leave granted to examine whether revising authority was justified in upsetting appellate order merely on ground that no objection was raised when allotment was being made in favour of respondents although it was alleged by petitioner that proceedings before Deputy Settlement Commissioner had been without notice to him, and whether High Court was justified in not interfering with said order.

S. Inayat Husain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 21st August, 1984.

‑‑The contest is in regard to allotment of land measuring 256 Kanals 3 Marlas in village Khola, Tehsil and District Mianwali. Both parties were‑ sitting allottees in the estate having pending claims unsatisfied. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner (Land), however, on 31‑8‑1972, allotted the entire land in favour of the respondents for the reason that no objection (U2ardari) had been filed. The appellate authority, in the petitioner's appeal, considered it appropriate to allow the units of both parties satisfied in the village and accordingly ordered, on 5‑3‑1974, the distribution of the land between them proportionately in accordance with the balance of their units. This was, however, upset by the revisional order dated 10‑12‑1974 on the ground solely that at the time the Deputy Settlement Commissioner ordered the allotment on 31‑8‑1972, the petitioner had not raised any objection. The High Court declined to interfere in the petitioner's writ petition.

2. There is a concurrent finding by the appellate and the revisional authorities that both parties were sitting allottees in the village and were on equal footing. That being so,‑ a question arises whether the revising authority was justified in upsetting the appellate order merely on the ground that no objection had been raised when the allotment was being made in favour of the respondents, although it was clearly A alleged by the petitioner that the proceedings before the Deputy Settle ment Commissioner had been without notice to him; and whether the High Court was justified in not interfering with the said order. We accordingly grant leave to appeal. Security Rs.2,500.

M. I. Leave granted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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