Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Writ Petition No. 1210-R of 1976, decided on 16th November, 1985.
---S. 10--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199--Allotment of land- Petitioners were not parties in a former writ petition which was accepted in respect of Khasra number in dispute and land wherein was allotted to respondent--Orders passed in said writ petition, held, were operative only inter se parties in respect of land comprising d Khasra number and orders passed in writ petition could not be construed to be operative qua land in dispute allotted to petitioners who were not impleaded as parties in writ petition--Orders of Authorities cancelling allotment of petitioners in pursuance of orders passed in writ petition declared to be of no legal effect.
Ch. Muhammad Abdullah for Petitioners.
Ch. Nazir Ahmed for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 16th November, 1985.
This petition is directed against order, dated 6-7-1976 of the Additional Settlement Commissioner (Lands), Sialkot, whereby he cancelled the allotment of land in dispute made in favour of the petitioners.
2. The relevant facts of the case are that the petitioners were allotted land comprising Khasra Nos. 1147, 1338/1155, 1158 and 1078 on temporary basis being Jammu and Kashmir refugees. Kh. Abdul Wahid respondent challenged the order of the allotment of land comprising Khasra No. 1078 made in favour of Feroz Din petitioner. His appeal failed before Deputy Settlement Commissioner (Lands) on 18-3-1968. He further challenged the aforesaid order in revision but the same was dismissed on 14-9-1968 by the Settlement Commissioner.
3. Kh. Abdul Wahid respondent also challenged in appeal order, dated 13-4-1959 passed by A . R . C . (L) cancelling the allotment of land made in his favour and impleaded Bashir Ahmed and Muhammad Ismail petitioners as respondents. His appeal failed on 4-2-1971 before the Deputy Settlement Commissioner (Lands), Sialkot.
4. It appears that he claimed allotment of another Khasra Number, viz. 1193, the allotment whereof was cancelled from his name and allotted to one Siraj Din. He filed an appeal against Siraj Din in respect of aforesaid land, but his appeal failed. He further agitated against the aforesaid orders in revision, but.that, too was dismissed. Being aggrieved against the aforesaid orders, he filed Writ Petition No. 165/R of 1970 against Siraj Din which was allowed and Khasra No. 1193 was restored in his favour. In pursuance of the order of High Court passed in the abovementioned writ petition, the Halqa Patwari made Report No. 517 in the Roznamcha Waqiati showing that the land in dispute was also restored in favour of Kh. Abdul Wahid. The petitioners filed Miscellaneous application before the Additional Commissioner (Lands) for correction of report in the revenue record. The Additional Settlement Commissioner (Lands), vide his order, dated 6-7-1976 cancelled the allotment of petitioners in respect of disputed land. Hence this petition.
5. Learned counsel for petitioners contended that the petitioners were not parties to Writ Petition No. 165-R of 1970 which was accepted in respect of Khasra No. 1193 allotted in favour of Siraj Din and, therefore, the land in dispute allotted in favour of petitioners could not have been cancelled. It was next stated that the respondent No. 1 has exhausted all the remedies by way of appeal and revision against the petitioners and he did not challenge those orders before this Court in writ jurisdiction as such the same had attained finality. Those orders could not have been set at naught by respondent No. 2 in 1976. It was also stated that Patwari Halqa had made a wrong report in Roznamcha Waqiati to show that the land in dispute measuring 82 Kanals and 14 Marlas stood cancelled by order of this Court. It was lastly submitted that after the repeal of the settlement laws, respondent No. 2 had no jurisdiction to interfere in the allotment of land in dispute in favour of petitioners
6. No one has appeared on behalf of respondent No. 1. Ch. Nazirl Ahmed Khan, Advocate appearing on behalf of Settlement Department l has frankly conceded that the order of this Court passed in Write' Petition No. 165-R of 1970 was in respect of Khasra No. 1193 allotted in favour of Siraj Din and could not be construed to be operative via-a-via the land in dispute allotted in favour of petitioners who were not impleaded as parties to Writ Petition.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for parties and gone through the relevant documents on the file.
8. Admittedly, the petitioners were not impleaded as parties to writ petition No. 165-R of 1970. The order passed by this Court was operative only inter se the parties and in respect of land comprising Khasra No. 1193 at one time allotted in favour of Siraj Din. Respondent is No. 1 having failed to get set aside the allotment of land made in favour of petitioners before the appellate and revisional Settlement Authorities, could derive no benefit out of order passed by this Court in the above-referred writ petition, qua the petitioners.
9. In the result, the impugned order passed by respondent No. 2 is declared to be of no legal effect. This petition is accepted. As no one appeared on behalf of respondent No. 1 to contest this petition, there shall be no order as to costs.
M. Y. H. Writ issued.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer