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.
Constitutional Petitions Nos. S‑50 of 1981 and S‑86 of 1980, decided on 8th March, 1987.
‑‑‑ S. 2(2)‑‑Secrutiny of Claims (Evacuee Property) Regulation, 1961 (M.L.R. 89), para. 6‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑ Surrendering of allotted land by mistake‑ ‑Restoration of‑‑Application for‑‑Land otherwise validly allotted to petitioners on claim was surrendered by them erroneously under M.L.R.89 of 1961 without any fault on their part‑ ‑Surrendered land admittedly was not in excess of entitlement of petitioners‑‑Application of petitioners for restoration of land, erroneously surrendered by them, having been wrongly dismissed by Authority, High Court in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction set aside illegal order of dismissal, remanding case for reconsideration of request of petitioners for restoration of surrendered land, according to their entitlement.
Qamar Ara Begum and others v. Chief Settlement Commissioner and others P L D 1966 Kar. 655 ref.
M. Najibullah Khan for Petitioners.
G.R. Warsi for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 22nd February, 1987.
By this common judgment I propose to dispose of C.P.No.86 of 1980 and C.P.No.50 of 1981.
The petitioners in both these petitions were Displaced Persons who had migrated from non‑agreed areas in India. They jointly filed their claims which were duly verified and an entitlement certificate for allotment of land on form QPR‑V was issued in their favour. In 1961 on enforcement of Martial Law Regulation 89 the entitlement of the petitioners was subjected to reduction under formula provided for in paragraph 6 of the Regulation. Thereafter the respondents regarding the claim of the petitioners as a single claim, reduced their entitlement and accordingly issued another entitlement certificate in their favour. Thereafter, the matter was re‑considered by the Government of Pakistan in the light of the judgment of this Court given in the case of Qamar Ara Begum and others v. Chief Settlement Commissioner and others P L D 1966 Kar. 655, and it was decided that all joint claims would be considered as separate claims for the purpose of paragraph 6 of MLR 89. Consequently, the entitlement of the petitioners was considered accordingly and a revised entitlement certificate was issued in their favour. The petitioners then applied to the fourth respondent for restoration of the land erroneously surrendered by them but their request was turned down on the ground that the land had already gone out of the compensation pool and, therefore, their request could not be considered. The petitioners in C.P.No.65 of 1981 also filed appeal before the Additional Settlement Commissioner in this regard but the same was dismissed by him vide order dated 24‑1‑1981, holding that after enforcement of Act XIV of 1975 he was not competent to hear such appeals.
The contention of Mr. Najibullah Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners, has been that the refusal on the part of fourth respondent to accede to the petitioners' request for restoration of the land in question was unwarranted by law as the petitioners were clearly entitled to the land which had been surrendered by mistake for which they were not at fault.
The facts as enumerated above clearly indicate that the department after the judgment given by this Court in the case of Qamar Ara Begum the Federal Government realised its mistake and rectified the same by issuing a general order dated 14‑5‑1974 to clarify the position. Thereafter, the department issued revised entitlement certificates in favour of the petitioners. The stand taken by the respondents that the land could not be brought back to the compensation pool clearly appears to be erroneous as the same offends against the instructions contained in M L R 89 under which only such land was liable to be surrendered as was in excess of the entitlement of a person. Moreover, a revised entitlement certificate being issued by the department to the petitioners on the basis of clarification issued by the Federal Government, the respondents were bound to allot them land on the basis of such revised certificate Consequently the stand taken by the fourth respondent was incorrect. Reference in this respect may also be made to the case of Shah Abdul Khair etc. v. Chief Settlement Commissioner, etc. without lawful authority. Mr. G.R. Warsi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents also did not contest the petition in view of the legal position stated above. He however, made an offer to the petitioners in C.P.No.21/80 and C.P.No.28/80 which were connected petitions and the offer was accepted by Mr. Najibullah Khan who is the counsel for the petitioners in all these petitions. Consequently the said petitions were disposed of as the same were not pressed by the petitioner's counsel in view of the undertaking. However, since no offer was made to the petitioners in these two petitions, the same were separated and after hearing of arguments were allowed by a short order, the reasons for which were to be recorded later.
The upshot of the discussion, therefore, is that these two petitions are allowed and the order of the respondent No.4 is held to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The case is remanded to the fourth respondent to reconsider the request of the petitioners for restoration of the surrendered land to them. The land shall be allotted to them according to their revised entitlement provided the same is available for allotment. The respondents may also see that no other person is dispossessed by such allotment in favour of the petitioners. The parties are left to bear their own costs.
H.B.T./W‑5/K Petitions allowed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer