Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No. 106‑R of 1985, decided on 28th January, 1986.

‑‑‑Sa. 10 & 11‑‑Allotment of land‑‑Cancellation‑‑Allotment of land in dispute made in favour of claimant displaced person by competent Settlement Authority was not challenged by petitioner for about 22 years either by way of revision or appeal or in alternative by way of proceedings under S. 10/11 of Act, 1958 when said Act was in force‑‑On repeal of Act, 1958 only those proceedings were saved which were pending immediately before repeal of said Act‑‑High Court refused to condone gross negligence of petitioner when rights had accrued in favour of allottee of land in circumstances.

Sh. Muhammad Ismail for Petitioner.

M.D. Tahir for Respondent No. 5.

This writ petition has been filed by the Municipal Committee, Jalalpur Jattan, District Gujrat to have the orders of Settlement authorities, dated 13‑2‑1963 and 10‑9‑1963 allotting the land to a claimant displaced person, declared as being without lawful authority and of no legal effect.

2. I had, in order to satisfy my judicial conscience and to ascertain the factual position, sent for the Extra Assistant Commissioner (Revenue), Gujrat to appear in this Court together with the relevant record. He is present with the record and after consulting the same has informed the Court that the Municipal Committee, at one stage had requested the revenue authorities for the grant of land of respondent No. 5 for the purpose of a playground. This request was not considered to be feasible and reasonable and thus was turned down. Earlier, the Municipal Committee had made an effort for the acquisition of the land which on‑being examined at the district level was not considered justified.

3. The E.A.C. (R) further on the basis of record informs that the allotment in fact had been made by the Settlement Authorities in favour of the claimant and this allotment was in keeping with the entries in the Jamabandi for the year 1911‑12 which showed Hindu evacuees to have been in possession. Thus it appears that the allotment was rightly or wrongly made by a competent authority in favour of the claimant.

4. I asked the learned counsel for the petitioner to explain the laches stretching over 22 years. The learned counsel with candid frankness stated that the Municipal Committee Authorities were oblivious of this fact and the matters came to their notice recently. This is hardly a justification for condoning this inaction, acquiescence and negligence for over two decades when in the meantime rights have accrued in favour of a claimant displaced person. The law under which allotment was made in Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act which stands repealed, w.e.f. 30th June, 1974. The Municipal Committee, therefore, if had any grievance or wanted to challenge the allotment could have either challenged by way of revision or appeal or in the alternative by way of proceedings under sections 10/11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act. Nothing of the sort was done while the law was still alive.

5. On the repeal of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, only those proceedings have been saved which were pending immediately before the repeal of the Act. It is not the case of the petitioner that any proceedings were pending. The petitioner has thus missed the bus.

6. In so far as this Court is concerned. I do not think that such a gross negligence can be condoned on any conceiveable principle specially when the interest of another party has accrued in the meanwhile.

The net result of above discrepencies is that this writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

H . B . T . Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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