Find a Lawyer

Civil Appeal No. 81 of 1974, decided on 11th November, 1985.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, dated 10-3-1973 in Settlement Revision No.33 of 1973).

---Art. 185(3)--Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act (XLVII of 1958), Ss.10 & 11--Land settlement--Leave to appeal granted to consider whether Appeal preferred by predecessor-in-interest of respondents from order of Rehabilitation Commissioner was dismissed or allowed.

---Ss. 10 & 11--Land settlement--Misrepresentation--Order passed without enquiry--Land confirmed in favour of appellant--Respondents appeals dismissed by Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner and orders attained finality--Contrary observations recorded by Chief Settlement Commissioner due to misrepresentation made by legal heirs of respondent--Chief Settlement Commissioner omitted to notice respondents' own admission, did not make enquiry nor dealt with findings recorded in that behalf by lower Settlement authorities--Order passed without hearing appellant--Finding of Settlement Commissioner on that point and of High Court vitiated--Supreme Court after detailed examination of record allowed appeal with costs.

A.R. Shaukat, Senior Advocate and M. Aslam Chowdhry, Advocate-on-Record for Appellants.

Shahzad Jahangir, Advocate and Sh. Salahuddin, Advocate-on- Record for Respondent No.1.

Muhammad Arif, Advocate and Ejaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate-on- Record for Respondents Nos. 2 to 11.

Date of hearing: 11th November, 1985.

--Leave was granted by this Court, vide order, dated 8-4-1974 to consider whether Appeal No.425 preferred by Gul Muhammad, predecessor-in-interest of respondents Nos. 2 to 11 from the order of the Rehabilitation Commissioner, dated 30-9-1955 was dismissed or allowed on 12-7-1956. The Rehabilitation Commissioner had held that Gul Muhammad was an 'A' class allottee and as such. had superior right to the disputed land in the Chak for which, if necessary some 'B' class allottee could be disturbed. This order affected Fateh Muhammad, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, and he applied for review of the order but failed. In pursuance of the said order of the Rehabilitation Commissioner, some land excluding that of Fateh Muhammad was allotted to Gul Muhammad. Gul Muhammad preferred appeal No.425 before the Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner and it was disposed of on 12-7-1956. According to the petitioner, the appeal was allowed. According to the respondents, the order, dated 12-7-1956 was not implemented till 1963. It was observed in the order that Fateh Muhammad appeared to continue to remain in possession of the disputed land till then. A copy of the Goshwara Register of Chak No.530/JB shows that Appeal No.425 was dismissed. Furthermore in their own grounds of revision before the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, dated 11-6-1964, paragraph 4, the respondents appear to have admitted that the appeal in question was dismissed on 12-7-1956 by the Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner.

2. Facts relevant to the appeal are that Fateh Muhammad son of Rahim Bakhsh, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner, a claimant displaced person, migrated to Pakistan from Kapurthala State during the communal disturbances in the wake of partition of the sub-continent, and settled in Chak 361/JB. In the said Chak he was given temporary allotment of land as a sitting allottee. Fateh Muhammad had filed three claims Nos.9373, 9466 and 9589 for verification of land abandoned by him in Kapurthala State. It is further claimed that 423 P.I. Units were also verified by the Central Record Room on account of share out of total verification of 2116 P.I. Units in favour of Mst. Rabia widow of Ahmad Bakhsh and grandmother of Fateh Muhammad. Fard-e-Haqqiat to this effect was duly issued by the Central Record Room. The entitlement of Fateh Muhammad in terms of P.I. Units was arrived upon to be 3,000 only. He was confirmed land equivalent to 1416 P.I. Units in Chak No.361/JB, Tehsil Toba Tek Singh, District Lyallpur (Faisalabad) as a sitting allottee. 1000 P.I.Unis were adjusted at Khata No.1 of R.L.II of Mauza Shah Beg, Tehsil and District Rahimyar Khan. These allotments are not subject-matter of present appeal.

3. An entitlement certificate for 384 P.I. Units was transferred to Chak No.350/JB and was received over there on 25-1-1954. The comparison of papers was more on 27-1-1954. The land in lieu of the entitlement was proposed on 16-2-1954 at Khata No.101 of Chak No. 350/JB. It was, however, cancelled on 18-2-1954 on the ground that "the land was reserved for allotment to refugees from U.P. and C.P" Fateh Muhammad feeling aggrieved, filed an appeal before the D.R.C.(L) which was heard and accepted, vide order, dated 25-3-1954, and the proposal of the land made in favour of Fateh Muhammad at Khata No.101 was upheld. The formal endorsement of this fact was made in the relevant Khata on 8-10-1954 and 11-12-1954.

4. The claim of Gul Muhammad the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents was received in Chak No.350/JB on 12-6-1954 and comparison of papers was made on 27-6-1954. The land upheld and maintained by the appellate authority in favour of Fateh Muhammad on 25-3-1954 was, according to the appellant, illegally proposed to Gul Muhammad at Khata No.112 on 29-6-1954 and it was later on cancelled on 7-9-1954 by the Additional Deputy Commissioner and claim of Gul Muhammad was transferred to Chak No.416/G.B.

5. Gul Muhammad was confirmed land at Khata 288 in Chak No.334/JB Tehsil Toba Tek Singh, Khata No.163 in Chak No.336/JB. It transpires that revision petition filed by Gul Muhammad against order, dated 26-1-1953 was accepted by the Rehabilitation Commissioner (Punjab) in the absence of Fateh Muhammad or anyone else on 30-9-1955. Gul Muhammad was proposed and confirmed land at Khatas Nos. 112 and 112/11 to the extent of 2019 P.I. Units in compliance with the order, dated 30-9-1955 by the A.R.C.(L) per order, dated 11-12-1955. Gul Muhammad feeling dissatisfied filed three appeals against Fateh Muhammad and 2 others which were heard and rejected by the Additional Deputy Commissioner/ Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner (L), Lyallpur, vide his order, dated 12-7-1956. This order has attained finality as no steps were taken against the said order of the D.R.C.(L).

6. However, some miscellaneous application was moved before the A.R.C.(L) in the end of 1963 by the legal heirs of Gul Muhammad while, it is asserted, misrepresenting the facts that order, dated 30-9-1955 of Mr. 1. U. Khan, Rehabilitation Commissioner was not implemented. The A.R.C.(L) in view of this, ordered the cancellation of confirmed allotment of land upheld and maintained on 25-3-1954 and 12-7-1956 from the name of Fateh Muhammad at Khata No.101, vide order, dated 29-12-1963. It, however, escaped the notice that order, dated 30-9-1955 had already been implemented and land to the extent of 2019 P.I. Units was confirmed in favour of Gul Muhammad. Gul Muhammad besides the aforesaid confirmation was also confirmed land to the extent of 1110 P.I. Units at Khata No.720 in Chak No.155/GB and 410 P.I. Units in Chak No.365/JB.

7. Order, dated 29-12-1963 was appealed against by Fateh Muhammad before the Additional Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner who remitted the case for a fresh decision, vide his order, dated 24-2-1964. The D.S.C/D.R.C.(L) in remand proceedings maintained the allotment in favour of Fateh Muhammad per order, dated 15-4-1964 and set aside the order, dated 29-12-1963 passed by the A.R.C.(L).

8. Legal heirs of Gul Muhammad filed an appeal before the Additional Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner which was rejected on 10-6-1964. The revision petition filed before the Settlement Commissioner was also rejected on 30-7-1964. Second petition for revision was also filed before the Chief Settlement Commissioner which was rejected on 17-8-1965. Thereafter the respondents filed Settlement Revision No.38 of 1966 in the Lahore High Court which was heard and accepted by the learned Judges, vide order, dated 19-1-1972. It is asserted that while filing Settlement Revision No.38 of 1966 it was misrepresented that appeal filed by the respondents before the A.D.C/D.R.C. (L) was accepted or 12-7-1956. It was duly denied by the present appellant and written statement was also supported by a copy of the order by which appeal was rejected.

9. It is argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the order, dated 30-9-1955 of the Rehabilitation Commissioner did not specifically direct the cancellation of the appellants' allotment in order to accommodate the respondents' father Gul Muhammad. Rather such a direction is obviously absent from the said order; that in pursuance of the said order, the Assistant Collector alloted to Gul Muhammad land held by the persons who had secured land in the village subsequent to the appellant and as such were junior B-Class allottees. The said order of the Rehabilitation Commissioner having been fully complied with and the respondents' father having been allotted the maximum permissible units i.e.2019 in the village, he could not ultimately have any grievance.

10. Gul Muhammad, it is further argued, filed three appeals requesting for allotment to him of the land held by the appellant and two others in place of the land actually allotted to him in pursuance of the said order, dated 30-9-1955. The said claim being absolutely untenable, all the three appeals were dismissed on 12-7-1956 by the Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner (Land). The matter was not pursued further by Gul Muhammad deceased and, in consequence, the order, dated 12-7-1956 attained finality. The contrary assumption in the orders of the Chief Settlement Commissioner and the High Court is, therefore, erroneous.

11. It is further submitted that in the last round of litigation initiated by the respondents after their father's death on the basis of a forged copy of the order, dated 12-7-1956 which bears date of its procurement as 27-8-1965, it was concurrently observed in the orders of the various Settlement authorities below the Chief Settlement Commissioner that Gul Muhammad's appeals had been dismissed by the order of the Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner, dated 12-7-1956. Added to this, in the ground of revision filed by the heirs of Gul Muhammad before the Settlement Commissioner the said observation as to the dismissal of appeals was not challenged. On the contrary, it was assumed therein that the appeal had been dismissed as it was urged that the said appellate order, dated 12-7-1956 was ultra vires in the face of Rehabilitation Commissioner's order, dated 30-9-1955. The foregoing circumstances are conclusive to show that by the said order, dated 12-7-1956 the appeals had been dismissed by the Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner.

12. The Chief Settlement Commissioner in recording the contrary observations to the effect that the said appeal was accepted, vide order, dated 12-7-1956 has omitted to notice the respondent's own admission embodied in the Ground of Revision as aforementioned, and moreover has failed to deal with the findings recorded in that behalf by the lower Settlement authorities. Therefore, the finding of the Settlement Commissioner on that point and of the High Court stand vitiated. It was further submitted by the learned counsel that the question whether the Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner had accepted the appeal by his order, dated 12-7-1956 or rejected had become invested with crucial importance, especially in view of the fact that the impugned order was made to rest thereon. As such a proper enquiry into the said controversy was necessary by recording finding without such enquiry the Chief Settlement Commissioner erred in law which resulted in grave miscarriage of justice.

13. We have examined the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants and also heard the learned counsel for the respondents. The Chief Settlement Commissioner has failed to consider that land in dispute was proposed in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the present appellants on 16-2-1954. The aforesaid proposal was however, cancelled on 18-2-1954 on the ground that the land was reserved for allotment to displaced persons from U.P. Against this, an appeal was filed by Fateh Muhammad predecessor-in-interest of the appellants which was accepted by the then Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner (L), vide his order, dated 25-3-1954 and the proposal of the land made in favour of Fateh Muhammad was confirmed. The order of Mr. I.U. Khan was already implemented and Gul Muhammad was confirmed land in lieu of 2019 P.I. Units. Appeals filed against the orders of A.R.C.(L) were rejected by Malik Karam Dad Khan the then D.R.C.(L), vide his order, dated 12-7-1956 which had become absolute and final and the A.R.C.(L) was not competent to sit over the order passed by the D.R.C.(L). Even the D.R.C.(L) was not competent to review the same order. Order dated 12-7-1956 is to the effect that the appellant made a grievance that the area the subject-matter of the appeal was proposed to him but later on the same was allotted to the respondents against which order he had filed an appeal before the Financial Commissioner which was decided in his favour but as his son had made a statement against the Naib-Tehsildar, therefore, the area in question was not allotted to him. The concluding paragraph of this order is to the effect that the facts of the present appeal are identical with the facts of Appeal No.423 and, consequently, this appeal is dismissed with reference to appeal No.423.

14. Respondents, however, made a representation before the A . R.C . (L) in the end of 1963 to the effect that the order of Mr. I. U . Khan, dated 30-9-1955 confirmed on 12-12-1955 by rejecting the review petition of Fateh Muhammad was not duly implemented. The A.R.C.(L) without hearing Fateh Muhammad or for that matter the present appellants', ordered the cancellation of the confirmed land from the Khata of Fateh Muhammad, now deceased, vide his order, dated 14-1-1964 and confirmed the same in the name of Gul Muhammad on the same date.

15. The appellant Fateh Muhammad, then alive, feeling aggrieved of the aforesaid order, dated 14-1-1964 filed an appeal in the Court of the Additional Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner which was heard and accepted vide his order, dated 24-2-1964 and the case was remitted back to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner for a fresh decision. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner, in remand proceedings, maintained that the land was rightly confirmed in favour of Fateh Muhammad and the order of Mr. I. U. Khan was already implemented. The respondents were neither aggrieved persons against this order passed by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner (L) nor had they any locus standi to agitate against the same before any superior Court The purpose of order, dated 15-4-1964 was nothing more than to maintain the confirmation of the land made in favour of the present appellants as far back as on 25-3-1964, on a legal plane that there was no ground for interference into the same as the order passed by Mr. I.U. Khan on 30-9-1955 was already implemented and the appeal filed by Gul Muhammad against the confirmation of the land in his favour in lieu of 2019 P.I. Units wa B rejected by the then Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner (L), vide his order, dated the 12th July, 1956, gist of which has been reproduced in the foregoing paragraph.

Consequently, on the facts mentioned above, we allow this appeal with costs.

M. I. Appeal allowed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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