Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No.249-R of 1979, decided on 18th February, 1987.

---S.2--Provisional Constitution Order of(1981), Art.9-Constitutional petition--Confirmation of land--Petitioner was proposed land in her favour in 1962 and 1967 and a few pieces of land were allotted to her by Deputy Settlement Commissioner (Land) but final confirmation thereof was withheld by Member, Board of Revenue (S & R) on ground that proposal was doubtful--Comments received from Department going in favour of petitioner and a major part of proposal had been admitted in comments--Petitioner, held, was entitled to confirmation of proposed allotment in her favour--Order of Member, Board of Revenue declining confirmation was set aside and direction was issued that proposal made in favour of petitioner should be confirmed in circumstances.

P L D 1978 Lah. 252 and 1986 C L C 2820 rel.

Kanwar Akhtar Ali for Petitioner.

A.N. Qaisarani for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 18th February, 1987.

The petitioner was initially proposed land at R.L.II No.40 in Mailsi, District Vehari measuring 48 Kanals 10 Marlas which was then calculated as 49 Kanals 3 Marlas for 273 units, on 30-11-1962. Under the appellate order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner (L), dated 3-5-1967 few pieces of land totalled as 9 Kanals 9 Marlas were also allotted to the petitioner for 57 units on 4-11-1968. Petitioner continued to make efforts for the confirmation of the allotment. Various reports in her favour were made but finally the confirmation was declined by the learned Member (S & R), Board of Revenue, on 1-1-1979 on the ground that the proposal was doubtful and could not be confirmed under the provisions of para.64 of Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme. The petitioner filed the afore-titled Constitutional petition.

2. A report was called for and it has been reported in reply to para.3 that "land measuring 48 Kanals 10 Marlas was initially proposed against Khata No.4 equivalent to 273 units in the name of petitioner". The correct Khata No. is 40 (Annexure 'B'). From it also appears that the proposal of 57 units on 4-11-1968 on the Annexure ' B' though shown as totalled 9 Kanals 9 Marlas but if the individual pieces and their areas given thereunder are totalled, these come to 9 Kanals 19 Marlas.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner was entitled to the confirmation of the land within 15 days in terms of para.68 of the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme and if the authorities did not do so, it was not the fault of the petitioner. Inefficiency of the authorities cannot deprive the petitioner of her rights. He relied on D.B. judgment P L D 1978 Lah. 252. He submitted that since the matter has remained 'pending' before the authorities all these years, the petitioner's case has to be treated as pending and has to be finalized. Reliance is placed on 1986 C L C 2820.

4. Mr. A. N. Qaisarani, Advocate who has been appearing for the Settlement Department was present. He was asked as to what he has to say on behalf of the Department. He submitted that he was appointed as Legal Adviser by the Central Department and his appointment was continued by the learned Member, Board of Revenue/Chief Settlement Commissioner but he has been intimated by the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Multan that he would appear on behalf of the Settlement Department only in those cases in which entrustment slip was issued to him. That is a matter between him and the authorities but he can always be asked by the High Court to appear and assist. Mr. Qaisarani has been appearing before me in this week and I have found him well-prepared and competent. Therefore, I have asked him to appear in this case.

5. Mr. A. N. Qaisarani, Advocate submitted that the proposal was doubtful and that for long years the petitioner did not get the proposal confirmed and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to relief:

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. It is quite clear from the record that the petitioner was proposed land in 1962 and 1967. Major part of the proposal has been admitted in the comments. Therefore, the petitioner was entitled to the confirmation of the proposal of allotment made in her favour. If the authorities do not do their job that is no fault of the petitioner and she cannot be 'a made to suffer for their inefficiency. In view of the judgments quoted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the impugned order is. set aside and it is directed that the proposal made in favour of the petitioner on her R.L-II No'.40, shall be confirmed, without delay. The petition is thus allowed but, in the circumstances, the parties are left to bear their own costs.

M. Y. H./N-29/ L Petition accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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