Find a Lawyer

--Art. 199--West Pakistan Border Area Regulations, 1959, para. 4--West Pakistan Land Reforms Regulations, 1959, para I9--Allotment of land- Subsequent allotment order, in respect of disputed land, already validly auction-purchased by petitioner, passed by Border Area Allotment committee without recording specific findings about exact Khasra number of disputed property, validity or invalidity of previous transfer and above all whether property would fall within purview of West Pakistan Border Area Regulations 1959--High Court in constitutional jurisdiction set aside non-speaking order of subsequent allotment in favour of respondent and remitted case to Border Area Allotment Committee for fresh decision after recording necessary findings.

Muhammad Khan v. Border Area Committee P L D 1965 S C 623 ref.

Ch. Qadir Bakhsh for Petitioner.

Muhammad Rafiq Khan and Sh. Abdul Manan for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 27th January, 1986.

Evacuee Plot No. 71694-B consisting of 31 Kanals situated within Municipal limits of Narowal, was auction-purchased by the petitioner for Rs.5,100 on 29-7-1961. Auction was confirmed and provisional transfer order dated 29-7-1961, was issued in favour of the petitioner by the Settlement Department. In course of time, permanent transfer deed was also issued in favour of the petitioner. Copies of P . T .0 . and P . T . D . have been annexed. Petitioner claimed that the aforesaid evacuee plot transferred to him in auction was comprised in Khasra No. 1939, 1940 situated within the Narowal Municipality. It appears that these two Khasra numbers alongwith some other land were allotted to Sarwar Hussain by Border Area Allotment Committee Narowal on 22-1-1965 at S. No 1617 of Register RL-11. Petitioner approached Border Area Allotment Committee to have the allotment of Sarwar Hussain qua Khasra No. 1939, 1940 cancelled. This application was rejected on 10-7-1965 by a short order stating that petition had failed to prove his allotment. it further found that field Nos. 1939, 1940 were validly allotted to Sarwar Hussain. Against the rejection order, petitioner invoked constitutional jurisdiction. Constitutional petition was admitted on 27-8-1965 and has been placed before me today for hearing. Counsel have been heard and with their assistance record has also been examined. Ch. Qadir Bakhsh, Advocate, contended for the petitioner that the suit property comprised in Khasra No. 1939, 1940, was auction-purchased by the petitioner. To support his plea, he referred to P.T.O. and P.T.D. issued in favour of the petitioner. Further submitted that some construction also existed on the plot. Counsel argued that after auction, Khasra Nos. 1939, 1940 were not available for allotment /transfer by the Border Area Allotment Committee. It was further submitted that vide letter No.GHQ/6049, 7778/443 dated 3rd October, 1963, immovable property within Narowal municipal limit could not be allotted by Border Area Allotment Committee. Copy of notification is Annexure 'G'. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 in reply, urged that in terms of the provisions of West Pakistan Border Area Regulation, 1959, all evacuee property situated within the Border Belt could only be allotted by a Committee constituted under para. 4 of the aforesaid Regulation and the Settlement Authorities had no jurisdiction to auction the suit property. Further submitted that agricultural land had been validly allotted to Sarwar Hussain, respondent No.2 and the petitioner had failed to prove his allotment before the Committee, and, therefore, was not entitled to agitate the same matter in High Court on the basis of fresh material not produced before the Border Area Committee. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 defended allotment in favour of his client and submitted that the property allegedly auction-purchased by petitioner was different. It was pointed out that Plot No. 7/694-B belonged to one Ram Serop whereas Khasra Nos. 1939, 1940 belonged to altogether different persons. After hearing learned counsel and examination of the record in depth, I find that this case requires remit. In para. 1 of the writ petition, it was specifically stated that disputed plot was comprised in Khasra Nos. 1939, 1940 having total 31 Kanals. Corresponding Para. of written statement submitted by respondent No.l offered no comments. However, it was pleaded that property transferred to Sarwar Hussain was different from the one which was auction-purchased by petitioner. Further defence plea was that after enforcement of Martial Law Regulation No.9 of 1959, with effect from 17th March, 1959 disposal of evacuee property in the border belt could only be made by Border Committee and none else. It was also objected that the High Court, in view of decision of Supreme Court of Pakistan, in Muhammad Khan v. Border Area Committee P L D 1965 S C 623 had no jurisdiction to interfere. This petition raises two points; (1) whether plot in dispute auction-purchased by petitioner was comprised in Khasra No. 1939, 1940 which was subsequently transferred to respondent No.2; (2) whether plot in dispute was validly auction-purchased by the petitioner and if the answer be returned in affirmative, whether same property could be transferred to respondent No.2 by Border Area Allotment Committee under Martial Law Regulation No.9. There is not enough material available to decide these questions by this Court. Even respondent No.1 in the impugned order, has not recorded specific findings on the afore-noted two points. In the circumstances of the case. I have been left with no alternative except to allow writ petition, set aside impugned order of the Border Area Allotment Committee Narowal and remit the case for its fresh decision g on the afore-noted points, after affording adequate opportunity of hearing,' to both the parties. No order as to costs. Parties have been directed to appear before Border Area Allotment Committee, Farid Kot House Lahore on 8-2-1986.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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