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.
Settlement Revisions Nos. 160, 213 and 215 of 1971, decided on 27th September, 1980.
---Ss. 10, 11 & 21--Revisional jurisdiction of High Court--Mutation of inheritance sanctioned in Settlement Revision after recording of evidence--Same, held, was not liable to be set aside in proceedings under Ss.10 & 11--Tmpugned order of Authority by which such mutation was set aside would justify interference by High Court in revisional jurisdiction.
---S. 2(2)--Entitlement on basis of occupation--Person in occupation of land for more than statutory period, held, would be entitled to purchase same--Such person could move authorities who would be required to act according to law.
Maqbool Sadiq for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 27th September 1980.
This order will dispose of Settlement Revision No. 215 of 1971, 160 of 1971 and Settlement Revision No. 213 of 1971 as these concern the same dispute.
2. A claim bearing No. 5438 for the land abandoned by Mst. Ghausan widow of Ghaus, was verified by the Central Record Office. Question of inheritance was taken up by the relevant authorities who after recording of evidence, vide Mutation No. 12 sanctioned the same in favour of Noor Muhammad son of Muhammad Bakhsh on 14-3-1952. In lieu of the claim, land was confirmed in his favour on 26-2-1954 in Chak No. 557-EB, Tehsil and District Vehari. After the death of Noor Muhammad Mutation No. 95 was sanctioned on 31-7-1961 in favour of the petitioners in Settlement Revision No. 215 of 1971. Another Claim Form No. 9865 was also filed in respect of the same estate which was verified on 9-5-1952 with the endorsement that the verification had already been made on Claim Form No. 5438. A mutation of inheritance No. 3 was sanctioned in favour of the petitioner in Settlement Revision No. 160 of 1971 to whom land was confirmed on 13-2-1957 in village Sangowali, Tehsil and District Gujranwala. Still another claim form was filed for the same estate bearing No. 9792 which was verified with the endorsement that the claim had already been twice over verified. It is admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners in Settlement Revision No. 213 of 1971 that no allotment has yet been made in favour of the petitioners. A Settlement Commissioner, vide order, dated 17-7-1971 cancelled all the mutations. The petitioners have filed the above-titled revision.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record with their assistance, it is quite clear that the first mutation No. 12 was sanctioned on 14-3-1952 after recording of evidence by the competent authority. The same was not liable to be set aside in, proceedings under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside. Consequently, Settlement Revision No. 215 of 1971 is allowed but there shall be no order as to costs.
4. As regards Settlement Revision No. 160 of 1971 in which against the same claim land had been adjusted in village Sangowali, Tehsil and District Gujranwala on 13-2-1957 it has to be seen that it could not be so because the claim had already been verified and settled. If the petitioners were inclined to seek land, they had to challenge the earlier allotment which they never did. Consequently, this petition is liable to be dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioners has, however, submitted that even if the petitioners have no right to retain the land, they having been in possession for more than 23 years now, under the latest law viz. Act XIV of 1975, they are entitled to purchase the same. If the petitioners have been in occupation of the land for the requisite period making them eligible under Act XIV of 1975, the petitioners may move the relevant authorities who will obviously deal with the matter in accordance with law: With this observation, Settlement Revision No. 160 of 1971 is disposed of but there shall be no order as
5. As regards the last revision petition, viz. Settlement Revision No. 213 of 1971, it has become virtually infructuous. Not only the claim had already been verified and settled but even if the petitioner were to be entitled to the estate, now no allotment can possibly be made in their favour as all allotments have long been banned and the laws under which allotments were made, have been repealed for the last five years. Therefore, this petition is disposed of as being infructuous. In the circumstances there shall be no order as to costs.
A.A. Order accordingly.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer