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 Petition No.S-25 of 1985, decided on 10th June, 1987.
---Ss.10 & 11--Allotment of land, cancellation of--Claimant's claim had already been satisfied by grant of land in her favour but surplus units certificate further entitling claimant was issued due to inadvertence by Settlement Authority, in earlier report--Claim of claimant was found unjustifiable on correction of mistake--Petitioners being successors-in-interest of claimant, in absence of any legal provision making claimant entitled to additional land After full satisfaction of claim, held, were not entitled to any relief.
Mohammed Ali Sheikh for Petitioners.
Nooruddin Sarki for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 5th May, 1987.
The petitioners in this case are successors-in-interest of one Mst. Hussan Bano, a claimant and displaced person who had a verified claim for agricultural land and garden are aggrieved by cancellation of garden land allotted in her favour, comprising of 732 garden units and allotment of the same in favour of the private respondents.
Pending settlement against her verified claim, Mst. Hussan Bano had been allotted eight acres of garden equivalent to 441 P.I. Units in Taluka Mirpurkhas under Interim Relief Scheme. However, before this allotment could be confirmed, MLR 89 came into force. Thereafter, revised entitlement certificate was prepared under the provisions of MLR 89 and the same was issued by the Central Record Office Lahore, but inadvertently, it omitted to specify the garden units of claimant Mst. Hussan Bano in the MRV. In the meanwhile the claim of Mst. Hussan Bano was verified for 1879 P.I. Units out of which 1465 P.I. Units were verified for her garden abandoned in India. Consequently, she was permanently allotted 1879 P.II. Units in Chak No.87/P in Tehsil Rahim Yar Khan. After such allotment, her temporary allotment of land in Tehsil Mirpurkhas was cancelled by the order passed by the Additional Settlement Commissioner (Lands). Tharparkar dated 10-6-1974. The petitioners filed appeal against this order before the Settlement Commissioner (Lands) Hyderabad and the order passed by the Additional Settlement Commissioner was set aside vide order, dated 8-10-1979 and the case was remanded for fresh decision to Mr. Mohammad Akhlaque Khan, Settlement Commissioner, Sind who found that the claim of Mst. Hussan Bano in respect of 1879 units of lard had already been fully satisfied and the petitioners who are her successors-in interest were net entitled to 732 garden units in her favour. It may be pointed out that a report, dated 28-4-1982. from Additional Settlement Commissioner (Lands), Rahim Yar Khan was received indicating that entitlement of Mst. Hussan Bano to an additional area of 732 garden units had been inadvertently shown in the earlier report dated 2-4-1980.
3. I have heart Mr. Mohammed Ali Sheikh on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. Nooruddin Sarki on behalf of the official respondent.
4. This petition appears to be completely without force. Learned Settlement Commissioner Sind did: not accept the petitioners claim for 732 garden units on the ground that the petitioners claim had already been fully satisfied by grant of lard in the claimant's favour in Rahim Yar Khan and the surplus units certificate issued by the Settlement. Commissioner Liaquat pur making her further entitled tc 732 garden units was issued due to inadvertence and consequently he has found the claim of the petitioners not justifiable. Mr. Mohammed Ali Sheikh has failed to point out any provision of law under which the petitioners predecessor could claim 732 additional units of garden land after full satisfaction of her claim. In the comments submitted by Deputy Commissioner, Tharparkar, it has been denied that the petitioners are entitled to any additional land in their favour or that any claim for such land was pending before the concerned authorities. It is evident that the petitioners only want to capitalise on the mistake earlier made by the department. In absence of any legal provision making the petitioners predecessor entitled to additional land after full satisfaction of her claim, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief. This petition is therefore completely misconceived and the same is dismissed with costs.
H . B . T . / G-50/ K Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer