Find a Lawyer

--Art. 199--Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act (XLVII of 1958), S. 10--Petitioner allotted and confirmed land equivalent to 77 Produce Index Units--Allotment found in excess of entitlement by 30 Produce Index Units--Additional Settlement Commissioner cancelling land equivalent to 51 Units--Allotment of land in excess of entitlement, held, had to be cancelled but in cancelling land equivalent to 51 Units instead of 30 Units, Additional Settlement Commissioner fell in error and order cancelling land in excess of 30 Produce Index Units was without lawful authority--Petition was, therefore, accepted to that extent.

Hamid Mukhtar for Petitioner.

A. K. Dogar for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 2nd December, 1985.

Munshi petitioner was allotted and confirmed land equivalent to 177 P.I. units at Khata No. 282 of RL-11 register of Chak No. 71/JB, District Faisalabad, respondents Nos. 2 and 3 moved an application under section 10 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act against the petitioner which was decided by the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner (Land) by his order, dated 22-1-1968, impugned through this writ petition.

2. Copy of the Additional Settlement Commissioner's order (Annaxure-E) filed by the petitioner with the instant writ petition, relates to some other case. A copy of the order passed against the petitioner, in respect of Khata No. 282 has been produced before me by the learned counsel for the respondents and has been placed on the record. In para. 2 of this order, it has been held that the petitioner had a claim of 147 P.I. units only, but he procured allotment equivalent to 177 units. He was, thus, found in possession of land equivalent to 30 P.I. Units in excess of his entitlement. However, in the concluding para. of the order the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner, cancelled the area equivalent to 51 P.I. Units from the name of the petitioner.

3. The learned counsel for the parties have been heard. The available record has also been perused. Two contentions have been raised on behalf of the petitioner. Firstly, he was an allottee of few Kanals only and under the instructions of the Chief Settlement Commissioner, excess land comprising small area could not be cancelled. Secondly, the Additional Settlement Commissioner, himself came to the conclusion that the excess land, was to the extent of 30 P.I. Units only but he illegally cancelled land equivalent to 51 Units.

4. There is no merit in the first contention but the second one is not without force. The learned counsel has not laid hand on any directive of the Chief Settlement Commissioner, showing that the case of the allottee with a small holding found to have been allotted land in excess of his entitlement, if, immune from scrutiny. Obviously, the petitioner was holding land which was not due to him. It, therefore, had to be cancelled from his name.

5. As regards the cancellation of 51 P.I. Units, the learned Settlement Commissioner himself found that excess was of 33 Units only. There is no doubt that he fell in error in cancelling land equivalent to 51 P.I. Units, instead of 30 Units. Even the learned counsel for the respondents conceded that to this extent the impugned order has got to be interfered with.

6. This writ petition, is, therefore, accepted, and the impugned order in so far as it relates to the cancellation of the land beyond 30 P.I. Units, is declared to have been passed without lawful authority. The petitioner shall have the choice to surrender the excess land the extent of 30 P.1. Units. The parties are left to bear their own costs.

S . A . 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.