Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition No. 1034 of 1985, decided on 12th April, 1986.

(From the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 29‑10‑1985, passed in Writ Petition No. 1130‑R of 1978) .

‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act (XLVII of 1958), Ss‑10, 11 & 12‑‑Settlement Scheme No. 1, para. 4‑‑Allotment of land‑ Excess Area‑‑Respondent allottee allowed by High Court to retain land in excess of their entitlement while petitioners seeking allotment of same against their pending claim‑‑Petitioners contending that S.12, Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 inhibited authority of Chief Settlement Commissioner inasmuch as his power to transfer or dispose of was subject to provisions of Act and Rules and that para. 4 of Settlement Scheme No. I placed a liability on allottee to surrender whatever they had obtained in excess of their entitlement for settling pending claims‑.‑Questions raised by petitioners requiring examination‑ Leave to appeal granted.

Iqbal Ahmad Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.

S. Wajid Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents Nos. 7 to 11.

The petitioners, allottees of resumed area, seek leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 29‑10‑1985, whereby the resumption of the excess allotted area has been held without lawful authority and of no legal effect.

2. The respondents allottees had obtained 50 Kanals 17 Marlas or, land in excess of their entitlement confirmed in their name. oil proceedings initiated by the petitioners under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, the area allotted to, them in excess of their entitlement was ordered to be resumed and try be allotted to the petitioners who had their pending claims awaiting settlement. On a Constitutional petition filed by the respondents allottee the learned Judge in the High Court held that the excess allotment way: due to no fault of the claimants, that there was tin application pending for purchase of excess land and that the petitioners were not advancing their own bona fide claim for settlement of land due to them. The refusal to allow the excess land either by purchase or otherwise was declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.

3. It is contended that section 12 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act inhibits authority of the Chief Settlement Commissioner) inasmuch as his power to transfer or dispose of is subject to the provisions of the act and the Rules. Para. 4 of the Settlement Scheme No. 1 places a liability on allottees to surrender whatever they have, obtained in excess of their entitlement. The extent to which the allottees having excess allotment can be allowed to purchase is all indicated at page 301 of Latif's commentary on the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act (1973 Edition). All the instructions on the subject have been summarised from pages 309 to 312 (ibid). Tree case of the respondents writ‑petitioners did not fall in any of the protective clauses enumerated therein and they were liable to surrender and make available the land in excess of their entitlement in their possession for settling the pending claims.

4. The question raised requires examination. Leave to appeal is granted. Security in the sum of Rs.2,500. The petitioners, if in possession, not to be disturbed subject to observance of other conditions of the allotment.

M. Y. H. Leave granted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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