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. 925-R of 1975, decided on 10th November, 1985.
---S. 10--Constitution of Pakistan (1973) Art. 199--Allotment of land- Land in excess of entitlement of petitioner withdrawn from his name on basis of classification and chart prepared by Patwari in presence of parties counsel indicating entitlement, calculation of land and produce index units of land--Counsel of petitioner, who had accepted calculations as correct, arguing that classification as worked out by Partwari was incorrect--Nothing available on record in support of his contention and no material was available before Court to find out whether produce index units calculated by Patwari were not correctly worked out- Cancelled land standing allotted in name of respondents since over a decade--Interference with order of withdrawal of excess land from name of petitioner declined by High Court in constitutional jurisdiction.
---Art. 199--Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act (XLVII of 1958), S. 10--Land in excess of entitlement--Choice as to which portion might be surrendered by allottee, held, could not be claimed by him as a matter of right.
Muhammad Abdullah for Petitioner.
Ch. Amir Hussain for Respondents Nos. 2 to 6.
Nemo for the Remaining Respondents.
Date of hearing: 10th November, 1985.
Muhammad Dif, petitioner in this Constitutional petition has called into question the order, dated 26-8-1976 passed by the learned Settlement Commissioner (Land) with powers of Chief Settlement Commissioner whereby Khasra Nos. 89,102, 103-min and 104 measuring 28 Kanals 5 Marlas situated in village Chaprar Khas, Teshil and District Sialkot was withdrawn from the Khata of the allottee and the said cancelled land was allotted and confirmed in the name of the informant. This decision was made in pursuant to the order, dated 17-3-1975 of the Settlement Commissioner (Lands), Lahore whereby the matter was remanded for re-determination. Earlier to it the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner (Lands), Sialkot, vide order, dated 21-5-1974 had calculated the entitlement of the allottee and had come to the conclusion that the land in question was being held in excess of the entitlement. The total entitlement of the petitioner was equivalent to 568 P.I. units. Out of this, area equivalent to 280 P.I. units was allotted at Khata No. 130 and as such 287 P.I. units remained pending for allotment. These pending units were entered at Khata No. 149 and the land was got allotted which according to the information laid was equivalent to 409 P.I. units. It was thus urged that the petitioner was holding land in excess to the extent of 122 units through fraud and misrepresentation by showing wrong classification of the land due to collusion with the field staff. The learned Additional Settlement Commissioner upheld the objection raised by the informant and directed withdrawal of the area found in excess. During the revisional proceedings before the learned Settlement Commissioner the question of classification of land was again gone into and it appears that in the presence of learned counsel for the parties the Patwari prepared relevant chart indicating the entitlement, classification of the land and the P.l. aunits of the land. Learned Settlement Commissioner in the impugned order also noted that these calculations were accepted as correct by Ch. Muhammad Abdullah, Advocate who was present on that date to represent the petitioner. Ch. Muhammad Abdullah, Advocate for the petitioner argued that the classification as worked out by the Patwari is incorrect and that the petitioner was allotted 244 Kanals and 8 Marlas and not 248 Kanals 5 Marlas as mentioned by the Patwari in the chart. Nothing, however, has been produced on record to support the abovenoted contention. In view of above there is no material before me to find out whether P.I. units calculated by the Patwari were not correctly worked out. It was next contended that while withdrawing the excess land choice should have been given to the petitioner in the matter of surrender of the land. The choice cannot be claimed as a matter of right. The cancelled land stands allotted to the respondents since 1975 and at this juncture I am not pursuaded to interfere in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction on this ground alone.
2. For the reasons given above there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.
M . Y . H . Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer