Find a Lawyer

Civil Revision No.148/D of 1985; decided on 26th February, 1986.

---‑S.115‑‑Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act (XLVII of 1958), 55.10 & 11‑‑Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act (XIV of 1975), S.2(2)‑‑Allotment of land, cancellation of‑‑.Available land having validly been allotted to deserving claimants, held, could not be taken away from them and allotted to any one else without affording opportunity of being heard to them.

‑‑‑S.115‑‑Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act (XLVII of 1958), Ss.10 & 11‑‑Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Law's (Repeal) Act (XIV of 1975),. S.2(2)‑‑Allotment of land, cancellation of Limitation‑‑Starting point‑‑Where land validly allotted to deserving claimants was in their possession, limitation against such allottees, held, would run from date when they felt aggrieved of order against them and not from date of passing of such order.

‑--S.115‑‑Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act (XLVII of 1958), Ss.10 & 11‑‑Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act (XIV of 1975), S.2 (2)‑‑Allotment of land, cancellation of Remedy against---After repeal of Settlement Laws only forum available to aggrieved party, held , was civil Court‑‑Contention that suit filed in civil Court (long after repeal of Settlement Laws) was not maintainable as remedy, if any, lay exclusively with Settlement side, was repelled ,in circumstances.

‑‑‑S.115‑‑Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act (XLVII of 1958), Ss.10 & 11‑‑Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act (XIV of 1975), S.2 (2)‑‑Allotment of land‑‑Entitlement to‑ Determination of‑‑Question for determination before civil Court being as to which of the parties was better entitled to get land in dispute, impleading of Settlement Authorities, held, was not needed at all as joinder of officers passing orders in question was unnecessary as no effective relief was sought against them‑‑Contention that suit filed without joining State functionaries was incompetent, was repelled in circumstances.

Syed Shahid Hussain Kadri for Petitioner.

Malik A.R. Arshad for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 26th February, 1986.

This Civil Revision calls in question the judgment /decree, dated 18‑11‑1984 of the learned Additional District Judge, Sialkot by which accepting the respondent‑defendant's appeal, the decision of the trial Court was reversed and the petitioners‑plaintiffs' suit was dismissed.

2. Land measuring 56 Kanals 5 Marlas was allotted on 26‑9‑1964 to one Muhammad Ali who sold it away to Din Muhammad on 30‑7‑1965, and then the latter further transferred it to Allah Rakha by mutation, dated 6‑9‑1967 which in turn was pre‑empted by, the respondent Abdul Hamid. In the meantime Ismail and others preferred an appeal against the allotment made in favour of Muhammad Ali and the same was cancelled. Instead of giving it to those appellants,' it was held available for deserving claimants and a portion thereof measuring 22 Kanals 6 Marlas in dispute in this suit was allotted to the present revision petitioners on 3‑5‑1971: as refugees from the State of Jammu and Kashmir. Abdul Hamid etc. being successors‑in‑interest of the original allottee Muhammad Ali challenged the cancellation of the land from his name in Revision and the same was accepted by order, dated 29‑12‑1973 restoring it to him. On the basis of this decision, the Settlement Authorities cancelled the allotment made in favour of the present petitioners without giving them any opportunity of hearing. They challenged this action in the present suit contending that the land given to them as refugees from the state of Jammu and Kashmir could not have been allotted to any one else and further that they had a right to be heard, before it could be cancelled.

3. The suit was contested. The trial Court decreed it but in appeal it was dismissed.

4. The position involved is quite simple. The land appears to have been allotted to the petitioners on 3‑5‑1971 when it was held available. Their status as refugees from the State of Jammu and Kashmir was such as rendered it practically impossible to take away the land from them for allotment to any one else all the more without affording them an opportunity of hearing. It is not denied that in the Revision brought by respondent Abdul Hamid, the petitioners were pot made a party and the order to the extent affected their allotment was obviously bad in l law..

5. Mr. A.R. Arshad, Advocate contended that the suit was barred by time inasmuch as it was instituted on 7‑5‑1980 to challenge the order, dated 29‑12‑1973. The contention may have had some force if the petitioners were not in possession. In fact their possession is not denied and the limitation would obviously run from the date when they felt aggrieved of the order. There is no force in the objection. The next contention was that the suit was not maintainable as the remedy, if any, lay exclusively in the hierarchy on the Settlement side. After the repeal of laws the only forum available to the petitioners was civil Court at the time of institution of the suit on 7‑5‑1980. The next plea was that without joining the State functionaries, the suit was incompetent. The order was passed in favour of the respondent who had been impleaded in the present suit. Joinder of the officers passing the orders was unnecessary as no‑effective relief was sought against them. The question for determination was as to who of the parties was better entitled to get the land and to determine it, impleading of the Settlement Authorities was not needed at all. As a result the Revision Petition is accepted. The judgment and decree in question are set aside and instead the petitioners‑plaintiffs' suit is decreed. The parties to bear their own costs.

H . B . T . Revision 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.