Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No. 42‑R of 1986, decided on 2nd December,1986.

‑‑‑Para. 7‑‑Proposal or preliminary allotment in favour of claimant‑‑Effect of‑‑Proposal or preliminary allotment of land in favour of claimant/ displaced person, even if not followed by formal confirmation order, held, would confer valuable rights on such claimant which would render him entitled to preference for confirmed allotment‑‑Such proposed land would cease to be part of compensation pool and thus would not be available for further allotment.

Noor Muhammad v. Muhammad Abdullah and others 1984 SCMR 1578 and Niaz Ahmad and others v. Mst. Khudija Begum and others PLD 1975 Lah. 169 ref.

‑‑‑Para. 7‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑Preliminary allotment in favour of claimant‑‑Inclusion of proposed allotment in compensation pool‑‑Limitation, held, would not bar removal of such order‑‑Order passed by authority being valid, constitutional jurisdiction was declined in circumstances.‑‑[Limitation].

Shahid Hussain Kadri for Petitioners.

Aushtar Ausaf Ali for Respondents Nos. 1 to 4.

According to the facts disclosed in the impugned order 'parchi taqseem' I.R.VI was issued to Mst. Fahmida Begum, the respondents' predecessor‑in‑interest, who was a displaced person from non‑agreed area, in the year 1959. Subsequently a proposal was drawn in her favour, which was duly confirmed by Sh. Abdul Aziz the then Revenue Assistant. Later on she was issued MR‑V. Her original entitlement stood at 1776 P.I. Units which was reduced to 1583 Units. The entitlement certificate issued to her is dated 30‑9‑1961. After the receipt of MR‑V by her, on 23‑9‑1964, an area equivalent to1588 P.I. Units was again proposed to her vide Khata No.5 of village Sheruke Tehsil and District Sheikhupura. Her MR‑V was also for 1588 Units. Upon these facts the Tribunal below found that the surrendered land did not revert to compensation pool but was to be dealt with under M.L.R. No. 89.

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined the available record. The petitioners' case is that only a proposal was made in favour of Mst.Fahmeeda Begum which was never confirmed and thus the question of cancellation /surrender of land under para. 7 of M.L.R. 89 did not arise. In his submission, on 19‑2‑1962, when the land was confirmed to the petitioner, it formed part of the compensation pool and was available for allotment. It has also been urged that the respondents' appeal against the said order was hopelessly barred by time.

h' 3. On behalf of the respondents it is claimed that the proposal was drawn in favour of their predecessor‑in‑interest on 5‑4‑1960 which was confirmed on 1‑6‑1960 and thus, the land in question could not have been settled on the petitioners. Their learned counsel has also raised the plea that even if the proposal was not followed by a formal confirmation order, the mere proposal itself ensured for their benefit for the purposes of M.L.R. 89. Support for this last submission is sought from Noor Muhammad v. Muhammad Abdullah and others 1984 SCMR 1578 and Niaz Ahmad and others v. Mst. Khudija Begum and others PLD 1975 Lah. 169.

4. There is much substance in the last argument. Without going into the controversy as to whether or not the proposal was confirmed, we may observe that the factum of proposal which was drawn on 15‑4‑1960 is not even disputed by the petitioners' learned counsel. The argument that a proposal confers a valuable right and claimant in whose favour a proposal is drawn, is entitled to preference, was looked with favour in the Supreme Court's judgment referred to by the learned counsel for the respondents. Earlier, in the Lahore Judgment, the proposal was held synonymous with "preliminary allotment" and upon the facts not dissimilar to that of the instant case, it was maintained;

".. It is, therefore, clear that preliminary allotment, had been made in favour of respondent No.l as far back as August 1960, and the only condition precedent for surrendering or repurchasing the surrendered land under Martial Law Regulation No.89 being allotment and not confirmed or final allotment Mst. Khadija Begum, respondent No. l had the necessary qualification for this purpose."

No law to the contrary has been shown to us. Thus, even if a mere proposal existed in favour of the respondents' predecessor‑in‑interest, the Provisions of M.L.R 89 were attracted; the land ceased to be a part of the compensation pool and thus was not available for allotment to the petitioners in the year 1962. In these circumstances the question of limitation even if it crops up, hardly assumes any importance, for limitation is not a bar for the removal of an order which stands self -condemned.

There is no valid ground to interfere with the impugned order This writ petition is, therefore, dismissed in limine.

H.B.T./632/L Petition 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.