Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No. 586-R of 1980, decided on 25th January,1986.

---Art. 199-- Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act (XLVII of 1958), Ss. 10 9 11--Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act (XIV of 1975), S. 2--Allotment of land--Cancellation of- Constitutional jurisdiction--Exercise of--Findings of fact in respect of excess allotment arrived at after re-examination of record and hearing parties by Authorities of competent exclusive jurisdiction, held, would be immune from interference--Disputed facts requiring fresh evidence, would not be gone into by High Court in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction.

Ch. Muhammad Rafique Khan for Petitioner. Ch. Muhammad Nazir Ahmad for Respondent No.1. Abdul Aziz Qureshi for Respondents Nos. 7, 8 and 9. Date of hearing: 25th January, 1986.

On the claim of respondents Nos. 2 to 6, land in two villages was allotted which the petitioner claims to have purchased. In proceedings under section 10/11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, the Settlement Commissioner exercising powers of Chief Settlement Commissioner, cancelled the allotments in the villages Sabokey and Dandian, Tehsil and District Gujranwala, as being excess of the entitlement of the allottees maintaining the allotments made earlier than these allotments. This is, vide order, dated 28-8-1977. This was challenged by the petitioner through Writ Petition No. 1248-R of 1977 which was allowed and case remanded to examine as to whether the allotments in the said two villages were earlier in time than the allotments of other villages which had been maintained in the order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner on 28-8-1977. The order of this Court is, dated 13-12-1978. In pursuance of this order Mr. M.R. Khalid, learned

Settlement Commissioner (Land)/Chief Settlement Commissioner examined the matter again and he has come to the conclusion that the R.L. 11 of village Sabokey finished at No. 95 and, therefore, there was no question of any allotment in favour of the petitioners predecessor-in-interest of an area measuring 565 Kanals 15 Marlas on R.L.11 No. 98 allegedly, dated 8-7-1963. As regards the other village Mauza Dandian, he came to the conclusion that the allotment appears to have been made on 9-5-1970 or 15-6-1968, both of which dates are subsequent to the dates of allotments in other villages which have previously been maintained. This is, vide order, dated 29-6-1980.

2. Record was sent for Register R.L. II of village Sabokey has been produced. Few pages like R.L.11 have also been produced wherein Khata No. 98 in relation to village Sabokey is mentioned. The original main register had finished at serial No. 95. It is signed and sealed by an Officer saying -that that contained entries only upto serial No. 95 and pages were 49. Register R.L. II of village Dandian has last Entry No. 235 of allotment, dated in 1959.

3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner with respect to village Sabokey is that the other papers like R.L.11 which are produced today were prepared when the original register of R.L.11 was taken away by consolidation authorities and these papers were not produced before the Settlement Commissioner. As regards the other village Dandian, the learned counsel contends that the learned Settlement Commissioner fell in error to take that the allotment was made on 9-5-1970 or 15-6-1968. In fact, the allotment was made on 12-8-1963. It was further contended that in the Mukhbari application these two villages were not mentioned and the name of the petitioner's predecessor-in -interest was interpolated after repeal of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, since 1-7-1974 in the year 1977.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the Settlement Department has submitted that on 11-8-1973 instructions were issued, by the Chief Settlement Commissioner that the Additional Settlement Commissioner, in case of Urban R.L.11 Registers, and the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, in case of the Rural R.L.II Registers, shouted sign, stamp and date all the pages of Registers and give a certificate at the end of each register that it contains so many pages and so many Khatas. In accordance therewith, the Register R.L.11 of village Sabokey was completed in 1973. It is obvious that the last Khata on the R.L.11 was 95, R.L.11 No. 98, relied upon by the petitioner, is bogus affair altogether.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The allotments in two villages Sabokey and Dandian were cancelled from the names of the original allottees, on the ground that the allotments in the said villages were in excess of their entitlement which had been satisfied elsewhere earlier. The petitioner, claiming to be a bona fide purchaser, came up in a writ petition and the matter was remanded for re-examination. That has been dome by the competent Authority of exclusive jurisdiction. It has come to the finding of fact that the allotments in the said two villages were subsequent to the allotments earlier made in the other villages which have been maintained and the excess allotment from these villages was rightly cancelled by his predecessor on 28-8-1977. This is vide order, dated 29-6-1980. It is obvious that it is not possible to go over the findings of facts arrived at after re-examination of record and hearing the parties by Authorities of competent exclusive jurisdiction. The claimant allottees have got satisfied their claim in full. They have never come forward to support the disputed allotments. The contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners raised in this petition relate to disputed facts requiring fresh evidence. This is not possible in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction in the circumstances. There fore it is not possible to interfere in the impugned order. The petition is concluded by findings of facts arrived at repeatedly and nothing has been shown to say that the impugned order is not within the lawful authority of the officer who has re-examined and re-heard the case. Therefore the petition is dismissed with costs.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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