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.
Civil Petition No. 930 of 1980, decided on 25th January, 1981.
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 25‑5‑1980 of the Lahore High Court in Writ Petition No. 405‑R/80).
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act (XLVII of 1958), Ss.10 & 11‑‑Settlement Scheme No. IX‑‑Land Settlement‑‑‑ Allotment of land to respondent in 1958‑‑Petitioners agitating against its validity in 1977‑‑Petitioners' application for its cancellation/transfer in their favour dismissed by Deputy Administrator (Residual Properties) and upheld in revision on grounds that property was not available and also for lack of jurisdiction‑‑Administrator (R.P.) observing that allotment of factory against agricultural units being irregular action ought to be taken by Government against same‑‑Supreme Court rejected petition observing that petitioners' remedy was to approach Board of Revenue‑‑Allotment was quite irregular‑‑High Court's order declining to interfere in writ jurisdiction, upheld‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
Muhammad Rafiq Khan Chohan, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Masud Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Rana Maqbul Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No.5.
Date of hearing: 25th January. 1981.
‑‑This petition is directed against the judgment dated 25‑5‑1980 of the Lahore High Court whereby the writ petition (W.P. No. 405‑R/80) preferred by the petitioners was dismissed in limine.
The relevant facts are that the land bearing Khasra No.10/26 measuring 41 Kanals 1 Marla was allotted on 5‑3‑1958 to Nawab Iftikhar Hussain of Mamdot, father of respondent No.5. The petitioners challenged the said order by filing a writ petition (W.P. No. 499/R/73) which they withdrew on 18‑11‑1974 with the statement that in case they failed to obtain relief from the Departmental authorities they should be permitted to agitate the matter again before the High Court. However, although the writ petition was withdrawn on 18‑11‑1974, the petitioners filed an application under Settlement Scheme No. IX before the Deputy Administrator (Residual Properties) in the year 1977 for transfer of the portion to them of the property which they were asserting was an industrial concern on the ground that the said area could not have been allotted to the father of respondent No.5 against his agricultural claim. The said allotment being void, the area should be considered as still available for transfer to the petitioners. This Application was dismissed by the Deputy Administrator (Residual Properties), Sahiwal, on 20‑6‑1980 with the observation that as the allotment of the land in dispute stood confirmed in favour of respondent No.5 and the allotment attained finality by passage of time the said property was not, available for disposal. It was observed that it was not even advisable to make its disposal after repeal of the Act.
The petitioners then filed a revision petition before the Administrator (R.P) Multan, who also held that the property was "not available" and dismissed the revision petition by his order dated 16‑2‑1980. The petitioner challenged the last two mentioned orders by filing a writ petition, which has been dismissed by the High Court. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
Before the learned Judge it was argued that the allotment in favour of the father of respondent No.5 was void altogether as the area in dispute was not available for allotment as agricultural land. This contention was repelled with the observations that the allotment in favour of respondent No.5 made as long ago as on 5‑3‑1958 was not challenged through proper proceedings at the appropriate time; the petitioners filed a writ petition in 1973, that this too was withdrawn on 18‑11‑1974 with a view to seeking relief from the departmental authorities. However, they did not agitate the matter before them until 1977. The Deputy Administrator (R.P) created under Settlement, Scheme No. IX expressed his inability in the matter as he could exercise jurisdiction only over available properties. The Administrator (R.P) also could not interfere. Hence the petitioners had lost their rights by their own default.
Mr. Muhammad Rafiq Khan Chauhan, in support of this petition, has vehemently contended that the property in dispute which he stated before us is confined to an area of about 19 Kanals is an Industrial Concern and could not be allotted to the respondent No.5's predecessor -in‑interest. But as observed by the High Court, the petitioners had lost their right on account of their own default. The application under Settlement Scheme No.IX could not bear fruit not only because the property was no longer available but also because it was not maintainable as Settlement Scheme No.IX was meant for disposal of 'urban properties only. Moreover, after the repeal of the Displaced Persons Act, the Settlement authorities also did not have jurisdiction to interfere with the order of allotment passed in favour of fat‑her of respondent No.5 in 1958. However, the following observations were made by the Administrator (R.P.) Multan "while we have to hold that the property was not available, it has to be brought to :he notice of the Board of Revenue, that since the allotment of factory stands made against agricultural units, it was quite irregular. I, therefore, direct the Deputy Administrator (R‑P.) Sahiwal to initiate case informing the Government of the facts about this issue for taking action in this respect". The only remedy for the petitioners appears to be to approach the Board of Revenue to take action in the light of the observations of the Administrator (R.P), Multan Division.
The petition, with the above observations, stands dismissed.
M.I. Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer