Find a Lawyer

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

‑‑Ss.10 & 11‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑Allotment of land‑‑Petitioner's allotment cancelled by Settlement Authority on ground that allottee had obtained double allotment‑‑Contention of petitioner that he never got any other allotment as alleged and that alleged allotment in his name was fictitious not controverted‑‑ Allotment in favour of petitioner, held, was not liable to be cancelled and order to contrary was thus without lawful authority.

A.W. Butt for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 19th February, 1980.

Nur Alam deceased‑petitioner represented by his heirs was allotted some land as J & K refugee in village Tatlay Hakim Haider Ali, Tehsil and District Gujranwala: As it was not culturable, he got it cancelled and in lieu thereof got allotment of land in Mauza Nowshera Sansi, Tehsil and District Gujranwala, vide order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner dated 29‑9‑1966. This allotment has been cancelled vide the impugned order of the learned Settlement Commissioner (Land)/ Chief Settlement Commissioner dated 19‑11‑1977, on the ground that the deceased‑petitioner had got double allotment in so far as he got all6tment in village Dharoki, Tehsil and District Gujranwala. The petitioners challenge this order through this Constitutional petition.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the deceased‑petitioner had never got any allotment in village Dharoki and the alleged allotment dated 29‑12‑1969 in his name is fictitious. It is secondly contended that the respondents had made no application under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 prior to 1‑7‑1974, i.e. when all the Settlement Laws were repealed, and, therefore, no proceedings adverse to the petitioner could have been taken. The statement in the impugned order that the application was made on 30‑3‑1974 has no basis in fact. It is also contended that the learned counsel mentioned in the impugned order‑ appearing for the then applicants, i.e. the respondents, has given an affidavit that he was never engaged by the respondents, nor, appeared in the Mukhbari proceedings. Learned counsel has further contended that the petitioner allottee was never served and the proclamation in the newspaper is of no effect unless steps for personal service are taken.

3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the deceased‑petitioner has only allotment of land in village Nowshera Sansi, Tehsil and District Gujranwala, made in his favour on 26‑9‑196 and that the petitioner has no other allotment, has not been controverted. The alleged allotment relied upon against the petitioner in village Dharoki, Tehsil and District Gujranwala is dated 29‑12‑1969. If there be an double allotment, the latter is liable to be cancelled. The other contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners have also not been controverted.

4. In view of what has been stated above, the allotment in favour of the deceased petitioner in village Nowshera Sansi, Tehsil and District Gujranwala dated 26‑9‑1966 was not liable to be cancelled and the impugned order to the contrary is declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. It goes without saying that it is the allotment of village Nowshera Sansi that the petitioner is entitled to retain and no other. The Other allotment either in village Tatlay Hakim Haider Ali or Dharoki, Tehsil and District Gujranwala, if any, is liable to be cancelled. As nobody has appeared to oppose this petition, there shallf be no order as to costs.

M . Y . H . Petition accepted

Find a Lawyer Near You

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