Find a Lawyer

Civil Appeals Nos. 26 of 1976 and 44 of 1973 decided on 26th February, 1986.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, dated 5‑5‑1972, in W. P. 1301‑R/66 and L. P. A. 513/ 67, dated 3‑2‑1972).

‑‑ S. 12(6)‑Thal Development Authority Act (XV of 1949), S. 36(1)‑Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Ordinance (XV of 1949), S. 12(3)(b)‑Acquisition of evacuee land by Provincial Government under Thai Development Authority Act, 1949‑Central Government was at relevant time, competent to sanction acquisition of such property‑Withdrawal of such sanction for acquisition by Chief Settlement Commissioner‑Property having been sanctioned by Central Government to be acquired by Provincial Government, held, would not form part of compensation pool and be subject to jurisdiction of Chief Settlement Commissioner Withdrawal of, sanction by Chief Settlement Commissioner, therefore, had no effect on prior sanction accorded by Central Government by which status of property was changed from evacuee to non‑evacuee property vesting in Thai Development Authority.

Ch. Muhammad Anwar Buttar, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadiri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellant.

Iftikhar Ali Shaikh, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.

Iftikhar Ali Shaikh, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellant.

Ch. Muhammad Anwar Buttar Senior, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No. 2.

Mian Nusratullah, Senior Advocate Supreme Court with Rao M. Yousuf Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents Nos. 1 and 3.

Date of hearing : 10th November, 1985.

.‑These two appeals were heard together as they arise out of the same judgment of Lahore High Court, dated 5th May, 1972, and will accordingly be governed by this common judg ment.

2. Sayyed Muhammad Ali Shah, appellant in Civil Appeal No. 26 of 11973, was the owner of land within the boundaries of old villages known as Mauza Aulakh Thal Kalan and Naushera Thal Kalan of Tehsil Leiah, District Muzaffargarh. It seems the Thal Development Autho rity acquired some land in this area under the provisions of Punjab Thal Development Act, 1949. The Authority under the aforesaid Act framed a scheme and constituted Chak No. 304/T.D.A., which was situated within the boundaries of the aforesaid two villages. It is common ground that there was some evacuee land in Mauza Thal Kalan. It is the case of Sayyed Muhammad Ali Shah that he was allotted by way of re-grant almost the entire are t comprised in Chak No. 304/T. D. A., including the evacuee area which was acquired by the Authority with the approval of the Central Government so that the said area no longer remained evacuee property. However, Aziz‑ud Din Khan, respondent No. 13, in Civil Appeal No. 26 of 1973, and others, who are appellants in Civil Appeal No. 44 of 1973, and who are refugees from India were allotted lands in Chak No. 304/T. D. A. in lieu of their claims by the Rehabilitation Authorities. The main dispute in these cases, therefore, concerns the land comprised in Khewat Nos. 57 and 58 which is claim ed by way of regrant by Sayyed Muhammad Ali Shah on one hand and by virtue of allotment in lieu of claim on the other hand by Rehmat Ali Alvi and others including Aziz‑ud Din and others.

3. The dispute between the parties commenced with an application, dated 15th April, 1961, submitted by Syed Muhammad Ali Shah to the Colonization Officer, that an area measuring 220 kanals situated in Chak No. 304 /T. D. A. (rectangles 1, 2, 3 and 31 to 35) had been wrongly allot ted to Aziz‑ud Din and others as refugee claimants on the ground that this area had already been validly acquired by the Thal Development Authority and adjusted in his name as a share of regrant out of the area acquired from him by the Authority. The Colonization Officer by his order, dated 11th July, 1961, rejected the application on the ground that Syed Muhammad Ali Shah was already in possession of land in excess of his entitlement and more importantly for the reason that the area allotted to the refugees was evacuee land not acquired by the Autho rity.

4. Sayyed Muhammad Ali Shah, being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Colonization Officer invoked the writ jurisdiction to call the same in question by means of Writ Petition No. 524/R/61, which was dismissed by the Lahore High Court as premature, against which decision he filed L. P. A. No. 195 of 1961. As his revision on the revenue side also failed before the Additional Settlement Commissioner, Multan, he filed another Writ Petition No. 1356‑R/63.

5. In the said writ petition, Muhammad Ali Shah claimed that he alongwith his two brothers owned 600 squares of land in Thal Pro ject, in which his own share was to the extent of 290 squares. Accord ingly, after the acquisition of its area by the Thal Development Autho rity he was entitled to the regrant of 50 squares in satisfaction of his returnable share or entitlement and, therefore, he claimed to have been allotted the entire Chak No. 304/T. D. A. except some 80 acres which were Adna in character and consequently were left intact with Adna Malkan. His grievance was that out of the areas adjusted in his name by way of return, the Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioner (L) allotted 705 kanals of land comprising rectangles Nos. 1 to 6, 29 to 33 and 34 (partial) to Aziz‑ud Din and others against their verified claims in the years 1958, 1959 and 1960. The main plea of Muhammad Ali Shah in this connection was that the said disputed area having been validly acquired by the Thal Development Authority had lost its evacuee character and accordingly, it was not available for allotment against evacuee claim arid had been legally regranted to him.

6. A Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, heard the L. P. A. and the writ petition filed by Sayyed Muhammad Ali Shah together and by order, dated 6th January, 1965, remanded the case for determination afresh. The High Court while setting aside the order, dated 11th July, 1961, passed by the Coloniza tion officer and the order, dated 9th July, 1963, passed by the Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner, directed the Colonization Officer to decide the case afresh, as stated, indicating the following points for particular adjudication:

(a) What is the extent of the entitlement of Sayyed Muhammad Ali Shah with regard to his land in five villages acquired by Thal Development Authority under the provisions of Act XV of 1949, and the scheme framed in 1953 in Chak No. 304/T. D. A ;

(b) The competence of the Assistant Land Officer who is stated to have allotted land to Sayyed Muhammad Ali Shah in 1953, in the said Chak No. 304/T. D. A. ;

(c) Whether Sayyed Muhammad Ali Shah's entitlement has been duly adjusted and fully satisfied; and

(d) Whether any evacuee land which has not been validly acquired by Thal Development Authority with the permission of the Central Government, is included in the allotment of Sayyed Muhammad Ali Shah and adjustment of his entitlement.

7. The Colonization Officer/Assistant Settlement Commissioner, Thal Project Colony, Batkhar, on remand decided the case afresh by his order, dated 17th September, 1966. He held that according to the revenue record for the year 1946‑1947, Khewat Nos. 22, 29, 49, 63 and 67 relating to village Aulakh Thal Kalan belonged exclusively to non Muslims and the area covered by them stood validly acquired by the Thal Development Authority. He further held that Khewat Nos. 50, 51 and 58, on the other hand, were owned jointly by Muslims and non Muslims holders and were thus un-acquired and retained their character as evacuee property. On the basis of these conclusions he held that the exchange of land already allotted by the Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioner (L) to Rehmat Ali and others displaced persons refugee claimants, with the unallotted land of Khewat No. 58, which was evacuee was illegal. According to the learned Officer, exchange was issued by way of review, which power was not possessed by the learned Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioner under the law. Accor ding to him such exchange could be ordered by higher officer, namely, the Colonization Officer and, therefore, the said order was set side with the result that the allotment of land in Khewat No. 58, in 'your of the refugee claimants was held to be illegal and without jurisdiction.

3. Rehmat Ali and others (displaced persons) being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, then filed Writ Petition No. 1301‑R/66, in the High Court of Lahore at Lahore, challenging the said order of the Colonization Officer/Additional Settlement Commissioner dated 17th September, 1968. It was contended on behalf of Rehmat Ali and others (appellants in Civil Appeal No. 44/73) before the High Court that the land in Khewat No. 67 was an evacuee property and was never acquired by Thai Development Authority in accordance with law. In this behalf it was poinced out that the area measuring 'approximately 4187 acres situated in Tehsil Leiah, District Muzaffargarh, was never specified by means of Khasra Numbers in Letter No. F. 16 (6) 51‑P, dated 18th December, 1951, whereby the Central Government accorded sanction to the Thal Development Authority to acquire the said area. As regards Khewat No. 58, it was urged on their behalf that the Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioner who allotted the land to them was competent to do so. On the other hand, on behalf of Sayyed Muhammad Ali Shah, it wits contended before the learned Judge, who heard the writ petition that the land in Khewat No. 58 was not an evacuee property as it had been acquired by the Thal Development Authority vide, Notification No. 1542. C, dated 4th April, 1951, with the approval of the Central Government contained in Letter No. F. 16 (14)/ 52‑P, dated 19th March, 1952, in consequence whereof the compensation was also paid in cash to the Custodian Evacuee Property. In the premises the contention of Sayyed Muhammad Ali Shah was that the Rehabilitation Authority had no jurisdiction to allot any area out of the land which thus stood acquired by the Thal Development Authority. The learned Judge in holdding that the finding of the Colonization Officer/Additional Settlement Commissioner that the land governed by Khewat No. 58 was evacuee pro perty observed :‑

"As discussed above, the Letters Patent Bench in its judgment clearly held, that the evacuee interest in joint holding and Shamilat and had remained un-acquired and was still amenable to the jurisdiction of the Rehabilitation and Settlement Authorities. Nothing has been brought on record to show that the land covered by Khewat No. 58 was not jointly owned by Muslims and non‑Muslims. As such, in view of the said findings, the Colonization Officer/Additional Settle ment Commissioner (Land) was right in holding that the land covered by Khewat No. 58 was evacuee and had not been acquired. Moreover, neither respondent No. 1, nor respondent No. 2 (Syed Muhammad Ali Shah) ever relied upon the said notification No. 1542‑C, dated the 4 h of April, 1951, allegedly issued by the Thal Development Authority with the approval of the Central Government contained in Letter No. F. 16/(14)/52‑P, dated the 19th of March, 1952, for the acquisition of the land in question. Its copy has not been placed on the file. Both the respondents were party before the Letters Patent Bench. The respondent No. 2 was the appellant. This matter was never agitated before the Letters Patent Bench nor before the learned Single Judge, who dismissed the writ petition in limine. If the land in question had been acquired in 1952, then it was obligatory for the respondents to agitate this matter before the settlement authorities concerned. It was rather admitted by Thal Development Authority before the Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner (Land), Multan, that the land in Khewat No. 58 was evacuee and was rightly allotted as such to the displaced persons."

9: In this view of the matter, the learned Judge held that since the land in Khewat No. 58 was evacuee property, amenable to the jurisdiction of Rehabilitation and Settlement Authorities, it could not be adjusted in favour of Sayyed Muhammad Ali Shah. Consequently he had no focus standi to challenge the allotment of this land in favour of the displaced persons. ,

10. As regards the question of competency of the Assistant 1Coloni zation Officer to pass order of exchange of land earlier allotted to the displaced persons with the land in Khewat No. 58 the learned Judge observed that in view of the fact that the allottees were unable to obtain possession of the land earlier allotted to them, there was no case of exchange. In this context the learned Judge was of the opinion that the Extra Assistant Colonization Officer, who was invested with the powers of Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioner (Land) was competent to make allotment in respect of land in Khewat No. 58, Thus, the learned Judge disagreed with the view of Colonization Officer/Additional Settlement Commissioner that the Extra Assistant Colonization Officer was not com petent to make the allotment. Accordingly the learned Judge set aside the cancellation of allotment of land in Khewat No. 58 and restored the same in favour of Rehmat Ali and others.

11. As regards the land covered by Khewat No. 67, the learned Single Judge held that the same was rightly acquired by the Thal Develop ment Authority on the following grounds :‑‑

"The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the land covered in Khewat No. 67 has not been acquired is not correct. Reliance in this regard has been placed by the petitioners on Annexeures LI and L/I, which are certified copies of the entries of the relevant Jamabandis. These entries, however, do not show that the land in question was owned by Muslims and non‑Muslims. According to Annexure L 3/4th of this Khewat was owned by Purnia Ram, while the remaining 1/4th by another non‑Muslim. In view of the findings of the Letters Patent Bench, the land of this Khewat being exclusively evacuee was rightly held in the impugned order to have been acquired by the Thal Development Authority."

In view of the aforesaid conclusions arrived at by the learned Single Judge, he held that the impugned order of the Colonization Officer/Additional Settlement Commissioner (Land), dated 17th September, 1968, to the extent to which it holds that allotment of land in Khewat No. 58 in favour of the displaced persons was illegal and without jurisdiction.

12. The judgment of the learned Single Judge, dated 5th May, 1972, was challenged by both sides in separate petitions for leave to appeal (C. Ps. 234/72 and 470/72) in this Court. Leave was granted in the petition filed by Sayyed Muhammad Ali Shah (C. P. 234/72, registered as Civil Appeal No. 26/76) in order to consider the following contentions;‑

(i) That the learned Single Judge erred in refusing to rely on notification, dated 4th April, 1951, as contained in the letter, dated 19th March, 1952, on the ground that the same was not relied on at any earlier stage including the letters Patent Bench which had remanded the case to the Colonization Officer/Additional Settlement Commissioner. This assumption was incorrect inasmuch as in the judgment in Letters Patent Appeal there was a reference to this notification;

(ii) The impugned order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner before the learned Single Judge was appeal-able to the Settlement Commissioner and since such statutory alternate remedy was avail able the writ petition was not maintainable.

(iii) That the decision of the learned Single Judge was contrary to the pleadings of the parties as it was admitted by the opposite side in their written statement that the area comprised in Khewat No. 58 was non evacuee and was validly acquired with the approval of the Central Government, which fact was further admitted in the affidavit filed by the Colonization Officer.

13. In the petition filed by Rehmat Ali Alvi and others (Civil Petition No. 470/72, registered as Civil Appeal No. 44/1973), leave was granted to consider the contention that in view of the direction given by the Letters Patent Bench no part of the allotment of the said petitioners (Rehmat Ali Alvi and others) was liable to cancellation. The further contention for examination was that there was documentary evidence to prove that the land in Khewat No. 67 was evacuee and was never sold to the That Development Authority but the learned Single Judge did not advert to such documentary evidence while deciding the writ petition.

14. In view of the narration of facts in the foregoing part of this judgment, it will be seen that the, land comprised in Khewat No. 58 which was held by the learned Single Judge to be evacuee property and validly allotted to the displaced persons in lieu of their claims is in dispute in Civil Appeal No. 16/76 filed by Sayyed Muhammad Ali Shah. On the other hand Khewat No. 67 which was found to have been validly acquired by the Thal Development Authority and no longer available for allotment under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, is in dispute in Civil Appeal No. 44/73 filed by Rehmat Ali Alvi and others. Therefore, the basic question on which the decision of the controversy between the parties turned is whether the two Khewat numbers in dispute were evacuee property or non‑evacuee in character at the relevant time when the allotments in question were made.

15. In respect of Khewat No. 67, it has been urged that in view of the final directions of the division bench in its order, dated 6th January, 1965, in Letters Patent Appeal No. 195/61, no part of the allotment of the displaced persons was liable to cancellation, and therefore, the learned Single Judge was not competent to cancel their allotment in respect of the said Khewat. It was maintained that this land was evacuee property and was not sold to the Thal Development Authority for the purpose of acquisition under its schemes. Now the finding of the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner/Colonization Officer exercising the powers of Thal Development Authority in his order, dated 17th September, 1966, was as under ;‑

"The area allotted by the Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioner in favour of Aziz Din etc., respondents, was on RL II Khata Nos. 508, 561, 562, 563 and 564 and originally comprised Khewats Nos. 17, 22, 29, 49, 50, 51, 53 and 67 of Jamabandi for the year 1946‑47 of village Aulakh Thal Kalan. With Notification No. 1542‑C, dated 4‑4‑1951, the T. D. A. were to acquire 2, 03, 418 acres of land, proprietary as well as evacuee, in various villages including Aulakh Thal Kalan and Naushera Thal Kalan, parts of which now constitute Chak No. 304/TDA. The acquisition of evacuee land could be legal only with the permission of the Central Government to that effect. Sanction of the Central Government was applied for, in the first instance, by the T. D. A. far an evacuee area of 4187 acres. The sanction was given by the Central Govern ment with their Memorandum No. F. 16(6)/51‑P, dated 18‑12‑1951. Subsequently, however, the Land Acquisition Officer. T. D. A. pointed out that a mistake had crept in the calculation of the evacuee area inasmuch as the non‑Muslims shares in Shamilat and other joint holding with the Muslim owners had not been taken into account in the first instance, that the area of 4187 acres was that which was owned exclusively by the non‑Muslims and that the correct figure, as then worked out, was 19527 acres 2 Kanals includ ing the said 4187 acreas. Permission of the Central Government was sought afresh for the acquisition of 19627‑2 Kanals of evacuee land but it was refused by the Central Government vide letter No. F. 16(14)/52‑59/P, dated 12th January, 1960.

The result, therefore, is that the area of 4187 acres (that owned exclusively by non‑Muslims) only is T. D. A. property having been validly acquired, by it, and was no longer to be treated as evacuee property."

On the other hand the learned Single Judge, as would appear from the extract of the impugned judgment reproduced in para. 11 above, while holding that the land comprised in Khewat No. 67 was evacuee property, came to the conclusion that it was validly acquired by the TDA. In this behalf learned Judge referred to the findings of the Letters Patent Bench.

16. This referred to the Letters Patent Appeal Bench's observation upon scrutiny of the official files which revealed that "although by Notification No. 1542‑C, dated 4th April, 1951, 203, 218 acres of land were acquired in various villages including Aulakh Thal Kalan and Naushera Thal Kalan, including the exclusive and joint Khatas of evacuees, permission of the Central Government was obtained for 4137 acres of evacuee land only vide Memo. No. F. 16(6)51‑P, dated 18th December, 1961." The Letters Patent Bench further referred to a fresh reference in respect of total area of 1957 Acres which was refused, as mentioned in the portion of the order of Additional Settlement Commissioner/Colonization Officer above. On these premises the Division Bench observed that the result was that "the evacuee interest in joint holdings and Shamilat land has remained un-acquired and is still amenable to the jurisdiction of Rehabili tation and Settlement Authorities." From this it is quite obvious that with regard to area of 4187 acres which was approved for acquisition, it was held that the same only pertained to land exclusively owned by evacuees. It is on this basis that the Division Bench held that if areas adjusted against the regrant in favour of Syed Muhammad Ali Shah comprised such exclusive evacuee Khatas, it will not be subject to jurisdic tion of Rehabilitation Authorities any more, and adjustment in his favour by Thal Development Authority of such land if made by a competent officer will not be open to challenge. If such land has been allotted to the displaced persons, it will be illegal and declared invalid.

17. In respect of the displaced persons, the Division Bench directed that their allotment will not be disturbed "if it is found that particular Khatas have not been duly acquired by the Central Government and are not included in the area of 4187 acres, for which permission has been granted by the Central Government." Khewat No. 58 was found to be jointly owned by Muslims and non‑Muslims by the Additional Settlement Commissioner/Colonization Officer and was accordingly held not to have been validly acquired by That Development Authority.

18. Learned counsel for the displaced persons submitted that the sanction for acquisition of land in favour of That Development Authority on which reliance has been placed in respect of Khasra No. 67 was sub sequently, withdrawn and therefore, even Khasra No. 67 remained un- acquired evacuee property. In this behalf the learned counsel referred to two documents, namely, Settlement Commissioner (Policy) memorandum No. 6007/AQN/MZG/63, dated 18th May, 1963, and the Chief Settle ment and Rehabilitation Commissioner's Letter No. 6011/AQN/MZG/153, dated 23rd November, 1963. The contents of these letters may be reproduc ed as under;‑

"Office of the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Pakistan

11‑Egerton Road, Lahore.

Mr. Bashir Ahmad,

Settlement Commissioner (Policy).

The Chairman,

That Development Authority, Jauharabad.

Memorandum No. 6007/AQN/MZG/63, dated the 8th May, 1.963.

.‑Sale of Evacuee Land in the Thal Project Colony.

Reference correspondence resting with the Ministry of Rehabilitation and Works demi‑official Letter No. P. 16(14)/32‑P, dated the 12th January, 1962 to your address, copy endorsed this office and your Memo. No. Thal/161/25886, dated the 17th November, 1962 on the subject noted above.

In exercise of the powers conferred upon him under section 12(6) of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Pakistan, is pleased to accord sanction to the sale to the Thal Development Authority of evacuee land detailed in the enclosed statement measuring 48871 acres and 12 Marlas situated in the different villages of Tehsil Bhakkar District Mianwali and Tehsils Leiah and Kot Adu in District Muzaffargarh on payment of the price to be determined by the Chief Settlement Commissioner, subject to the condition that the property in question is not transferable to any person under the other provisions of the aforesaid Act. The question of recovery of interest, if any, to be charged from the date of occupation till the date of payment of the price will be decided alongwith the price.

This supersedes the sanction conveyed in this Office Memorandum No. 149/AQN/MZG/145, dated the 26th February, 1963."

Office of the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner Pakistan.

11‑Egerton Road, Lahore.

No. 601 1 /AQN/MZG/153, dated the November, 1963.

Mr. Bashir Ahmad,

Settlement Commissioner (Policy)

The Chairman, Thal Development Authority, Bhakkar.

The Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Pakistan has been pleased to withdraw sanction of 48871 acres and 12 Marlas of land situated in different villages of Tehsil Bahakkar District Muzaffargarh sanctioned in favour of the Thal Development Authority vide memo. No. 6007/AQN/MZG/63, dated 8‑5‑1963 and Memo. No. 149/AQN/MZB/145, dated 26‑2‑1962 also.

(Sd.) Settlement Commissioner (Colony),

West Pakistan, Lahore."

The point to be noted is that the two letters pertain to the sanction granted by the Chief Settlement Commissioner for the sale to the Thal Development Authority of evacuee land measuring 48871 Acres and 12 Marlas under section 12(6) of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958. The list of Khasra numbers annexed to the first mentioned memorandum referred to Notification No. 1542‑C, dated 4th April, 1951 and includes both the disputed Khasra Nos. 58 and 67. We have been supplied photo copy of the Punjab Gazette (Extraordinary), dated 2^nd July, 1951, in which the said notification of 4th April, 1951, was published. This notification was issued by the Governor of Punjab in exercise of powers conferred by subsection (1) of section 36 of the Thal Development Act, 1949 and related to an area comprised 2,03,418 Acres in various villages including Aulakh Kalan, Tehsil Leiah, District Muzaffargarh. The letters relied upon by the learned counsel relate to the withdrawal of sanction by the Chief Settlement Commissioner, under section 12(6) of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958. After the acquisition of the evacuee lands under section 4 of the said Act, the Chief Settle ment Commissioner was the competent authority to sanction the sale of the land forming part of the compensation pool. However, there is another document on record, viz. Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Refugees and Rehabilitation, Karachi Letter No. F. 16(6)/51‑P, dated 18th December, 1951 by which in exercise of powers conferred by section 12(3)(6) of the Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Ordinance, 1949, the Central Government accorded approval to the acquisition by the Punjab Government under the provision of the Thal Development Act, 1949, of immovable property measuring approximately 187 acres situated in the Leiah Tehsil, Muzaffargarh District. It may he observed that prior to the acquisition of the evacuee land under the displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, the property was evacuee property and at the relevant date the Central Government was competent sanction the acquisition of such property under section 12(3)(6). Therefore, if before the acquisition of the property the Central Govern had already sanctioned its acquisition by the Thal Development authority, such property would not form part of the compensation pool be subject to the jurisdiction of the Chief Settlement Commissioner. Chief Settlement Commissioner's letters on which reliance has been paced relate to an area of 48871 acres in regard to which sanction was initially accorded and subsequently withdrawn. Whereas the sanction of Government of Pakistan for acquisition relates to an area of about 4187 Acres. The withdrawal of sanction by the Chief Settlement Commis sioner, therefore, has no effect on the prior sanction accorded by the Central Government by which the status of the property would be changed from evacuee to non evacuee property vesting in the Thai Development Authority. As observed by the learned Single Judge the levers patent bench while remanding the case for fresh decision to the Colonization Officer had come to the conclusion that an area of 4187 acres which was approved for acquisition by the Central Government pertained to land exclusively owned by evacuees. Since the judgment of the letters patent bench was not challenged by either party, the learned Single Judge was justified in adopting the conclusions arrived at by the said Bench, which are also supported by the record placed before us. The learned Single Judge with reference to the entries in the Jamabandis came to the conclusion that Khasra No. 67 was exclusively held by the Hindu evacuee owners. This factual basis has not been challenged before us and no documentary evidence to the contrary has been pointed out. We, therefore, agree with the finding of the learned Single Judge that Khasra No. 67 was validly acquired by the Thal Development Authority and could not be allotted to the displaced persons under the settlement laws. The only other argument advanced by the learned counsel for tae displaced persons was that the Colonization Officer had cancelled their allotment in respect of Khasra No. 67 beyond the scope of the remand order by which the case was remanded to him by the letters patent bench. The submission was that no part of the allotment of the displaced persons was liable to be cancelled. This argument is without substance as the bare perusal of the directions given by the letters patent bench for fresh decision on remand would show that only the land which has not been validly acquired by the Thal Development Authority with the permission of the Central Government was to be excluded from the allotment of Syed Muhammad Ali Shah. The necessary consequence was that if Khasra No. 67 was acquired with the permission of the Central Government, it would be the property of the Thal Development Authority and could not, therefore, be subject to allotment under the Settlement Scheme.

17. So far as Khasra No. 58 is concerned, on the evidence produced before the Colonization Officer and examined by the learned Single Judge the land comprised therein was not jointly held by evacuee owners and Muslim non‑evacuees. Therefore, it was not covered by the acquisition sanctioned in favour of the Thal Development Authority which only covered land exclusively owned by the evacuees. This finding has not been challenged by the learned counsel for Syed Muhammad Ali Shah by showing anything to the contrary on the record. Khasra No. 58 was, therefore, validly held to be evacuee property which could not be adjusted towards the regrant in favour of Syed Muhammad Ali Shah. No other argument was urged before us and therefore, it is not necessary to decide other contentions noted in the leave granting order.

18. In the result both appeals are dismissed with costs.

M. B. A. Appeals 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.