Find a Lawyer

Civil Petitions Nos. 542 of 1975 and 1087 of 1976, decided on 13th December, 1980.

(On appeal from the judgments of Lahore High Court, dated 22‑11‑1974 in Writ Petition No. 1515‑R of 1974 and dated 28‑9‑1976 in Writ Petition No. 1780‑R of 1976).

‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act (XLVII of 1958), Ss. 10 & 11‑‑Cancellation of allotment on ground that petitioner was not successor‑in‑interest of deceased claimants and had fraudulently obtained allotment upheld upto Supreme Court‑‑Petitioner subsequently establishing that he was successor‑in‑interest of deceased claimants‑ Claim of petitioner for restoration of same allotment rejected‑‑High Court holding petitioner not entitled to reopen previously cancelled allotment‑ Question of petitioner's entitlement to land originally allotted to him having foreclosed, leave to appeal refused.

Inayat Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner (in both petitions)

Date of hearing: 13th December, 1980.

‑Facts briefly stated are that the petitioner who professes to be the successor‑in‑interest of Bagga, Boot&, Rulya and Natboo filed claims for the properties abandoned by them in India. These claims were verified and mutation of inheritance was entered in petitioner's name in 1954 land measuring 131 Kanals and 1 Marla in Raiwind, Tehsil and District Lahore was allotted to him.

Consequently on a Mukhbari application, by one Mst. Shaukat Jahan Ara, the allotment in petitioner's favour was cancelled on the ground that he was not the successor‑in‑interest of the deceased claimants and had fraudulently obtained the allotment in his name. The petitioner challenged these orders in Writ Petition No. 241‑R of 1963 before the 'Lahore High Court but it was dismissed on 8‑2‑1966. Letters Patent Appeal No. 401 of 1966 filed by him met the same fate, and petition for special leave to appeal was also dismissed by this Court on 4‑10‑1966. Finally, even a petition for review was dismissed by this Court on 27‑1‑1967.

During these proceedings, the petitioner made an application to the Central Record Office for obtaining pedigree‑table and special Jamabandi from India. This request was granted, and according to the learned counsel of the petitioner, the papers received from India disclosed that the petitioner was the successor‑in‑interest of the deceased claimants. Petitioner, then requested for the restoration of the allotment of the land but this was refused. The petitioner thereupon again approached the Lahore High Court in Writ Petition No. 1515‑R of 1974 and it was disposed of by the judgment, dated 22‑11‑1974 with the direction that the Central Record Office should reverify petitioner's entitlement. Petitioner's claim to the allotment of the land which had been previously cancelled was, however; rejected by the High Court on the ground that he is not entitled to have this part of the case re‑opened. In this regard the High Court also noticed the statement of the learned counsel who then represented the petitioner, which may be usefully reproduced hereunder:

"The petitioner's counsel categorically stated before me that the petitioner was not making any attempt to get his cancelled allotment restored and that in fact his client was not at fall interested to get the same reopened. What he actually desired was that as it has been found that the petitioner is an heir of his collaterals, the claim of the collaterals be verified in his name. I do not see any reason why the Central Record Office should not accede to the request of the petitioner. The orders passed by the Central Record Office and the settlement Commissioner refusing to reverify the entitlement of the petitioner are declared to be without lawful authority and of, no legal effect and the Central Record Office is directed to reverify the entitlement of the petitioner's collaterals in accordance with the record available with them.

Before parting with this case it may again be emphasised that the petitioner shall not be entitled to reopen the previously cancelled allotment."

Being dissatisfied with this judgment, the petitioner filed Civil Petition No. 542 of 1975 in this Court for special leave to appeal.

During the pendency of the proceedings in the High Court it appears that he. approached the Settlement Department for the restoration of the allotment of the land. His request was ultimately rejected by the Settlement Commissioner by his order, dated 2‑3‑1972 and he then challenged this order in Writ Petition No. 1780‑R of 1974 in Lahore High Court. This petition was dismissed by the judgment, dated 28‑9‑1976 on the ground that the petitioner's claim had been rejected by the earlier judgment of the High Court, dated 22‑11‑1974 in Writ Petition No. 1515‑R of 1974. The petitioner then filed Civil Petition No. 1087 of 1976 praying for grant of special leave to appeal from the judgment of the High Court, dated 28‑9‑1976. Both the petitions i.e. Civil Petition No. 542 of 1975 and Civil Petition No. 1087 of 1976 were heard together since these arise out of the same dispute between the parties.

Mr. Inayat Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner has been held to be successor‑in‑interest of the deceased claimant, he is entitled to the restoration of the allotment of the land originally made in his favour.

We find no substance in this plea for the reason that we entirely agree with the view that has prevailed with the High Court that the question of petitioner's entitlement to the land originally allotted to him stands foreclosed by the judgment of this Court, dated 27‑1‑1967 bye which petitioner's Review Application was dismissed.

Both the petitions are dismissed, in limine.

M.I Petitions dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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