Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No. 1076/R of 1975, decided on 23rd December, 1985.

---Ss. 10 & 11--Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act (XIV of 1975), S. 2(2)--Entitlement to property--Effect of repeal of ordinance XLVII of 1958--Parch -Taqseem and R.L.II register unequivocally establishing allotment of petitioner which was never cancelled--Entries of R.L.II acted upon in Revenue Record--No basis to establish collusion between petitioner and Revenue staff- Land in question, held, was not available for allotment--Allotment was, therefore, utterly illegal--Right created under repealed Act would subsist if not expressly taken away by subsequent enactment.

---Art. 199--Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise of--Allotment of land not cancelled by competent authority, held would subsist--Acts and transaction with respect to such land having been made without lawful authority would be declared to be of no legal effect by High Court in constitutional jurisdiction.

A. Karim Malik for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondent No.3:

Muhammad Abbas Mirza, for Respondents Nos. 7 and 8.

Dates of hearing: 21st and 23rd December, 1985.

The dispute between the parties relates to land measuring 5 Kanals 16 Marlas situate in Chak No. 13/R.B. Tehsil and District Sheikhupura. It formed part of Khasra No. 22/6 measured 8 Kanals 18 Marlas. The petitioner's case is that he is a claimant and originally the entire Khasra number was allotted to him and Parchi Taqseem issued in his name in this behalf. But subsequently, the area was reduced to 5 Karials 16 Marlas and an entry to that effect made in the Parchi Taqseem. That without cancelling his allotment the area aforesaid vide Khata No. 652 of R.L.11 register, at the back of the petitioner, was, allotted to respondents Nos. 3 and 4 but during the consolidation proceedings the land fell to the lot of respondent No.5 and one Banney Khan who is now represented by his son respondent No.6 herein. That on 23-5-1978 Nizam Din respondent No. 5 sold away the land falling to his share in ' favour of, respondent No.7. The petitioner filed an application under section 10/11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, challenging the allotment on the ground that it was procured by respondents Nos. 3 and 4 in -collusion with the Settlement Authorities. The Additional Settlement Commissioner, who heard it by his order, dated 2-4-1974 dismissed the same. He maintained that though the area was entered in the R.L.II register against the petitioner's Khata, but it was cancelled and thus, the land was available for allotment. This decision was influenced by the fact, that the petitioner failed to produce the Parchi Taqseem (Khatuni) before him. .

2. This order was called in question by the petitioner through a revision filed on 6-7-1974, but it was not rightly entertained on the ground that no such right survived after the enforcement. of Act XIV of 1975.

3. Respondents Nos. 5 and 6 have already been proceeded against ex parte. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent No.7. On behalf of the petitioner, the points urged before the Additional Settlement Commissioner have been reiterated and it is contended that the Commissioner held a valid - allotment- but without cancellation thereof the land was illegally proposed and confirmed to respondents Nos. 3 and 4. In support of his submission the learned counsel has drawn my attention to 'Parch Taqseem' Annexure 'A' which indicates that originally area measuring 8 Kanals 18 Marlas was allotted to the petitioner but subsequently it was reduced to 5 Kanals 16 Marlas. He also heavily relied upon the copy of the R.L.II, Khata No. 341 in the petitioner's name, annexed with the parawise comments filed on behalf of the Settlement Authority. In this document, Khasra No. 22/6 with an area of 5 Kanals 16 Marlas has been included in the land particularised therein and allotted to the petitioner. There is no indication that this Khasra number has been deleted from the petitioner's name.

4. When confronted with the documents, the learned counsel for respondent No. 7 did not have much in supporting the order, dated 2-4-1974 and simply contended that the petitioner might have obtained allotment in lieu of the land in dispute elsewhere.

5. There is hardly any merit in the submission of the learned counsel for respondent. The petitioner has all along been litigating for this land. There. is nothing on the record to show that some land in lieu of Khasra No. 22/6 has been allotted to him. The Parch -Taqseem and the copy of the R.L.II register unequivocally establish that the land stood allotted to the petitioner and was never cancelled. Not only that, the entries in the R.L.II register seemingly were also acted upon in the Revenue record. Indeed, the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner had no basis to maintain that the entries in the Revenue Record were the result of collusion between the petitioner and subordinate officials of the Revenue Department. The land was thus, not available for allotment of respondents Nos. 3 and 4. In this respect also the view taken by the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner is contrary to the record. The allotment in favour of respondents Nos.3 and 4 is thus, utterly illegal.

6. For the foregoing reasons this writ petition is accepted. The allotment of the land in dispute to respondents Nos.3 and 4 and all subsequent transactions rested therein, including the Additional Settlement Commissioner, order dated 2-4-1974 are declared to have been made without lawful authority and as of no legal effect. Consequently the land stands reverted to the petitioner. The parties are left to bear their own 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.