Find a Lawyer

Writ Petitions Nos. 772/11 and 773/11 of 1978, decided on 24th February, 1986.

‑‑‑Ss. 10 & 11‑‑Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons (Repeal) Act (XIV of 1975), S. 2(2)‑‑Allotment of land, cancellation of‑‑Classification of land abandoned by petitioner in India, under category of 'Pacca Bigha' based on Ready Reckoner or 'Jantri' issued by Government and based on provisions of Land Records Manual‑‑Entitlement of petitioner in respect of allotment of evacuee property already worked out by Authority on basis of measurement of 'Pacca Bigha', held, could not be disturbed or cancelled on failure of Mukhbar to prove that land abandoned by petitioner in India was under 'Kham Bigha'.

Islam Ali Qureshi for Petitioner. A.N. Qaisrani for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2. Dates of hearing: 1st, 2nd and 24th February, 1986.

This order will also dispose of connected Writ Petition No. 773/11 of 1978, as both the petitions are directed against the same impugned order and common questions of fact and law arise therein.

2. Facts relevant for the disposal of these petitions, briefly stated, are that Muhammad Yaseen petitioner (in W.P. No. 772/11 of 1978) filed Claim No. 421 for agricultural land abandoned by him in village Urlana Kalan, Tehsil Panipat, District Karnal (East Punjab). This claim was verified and a certificate of entitlement for 46 Bighas and 4 Biswas equivalent to 1029 P.I. Units was issued to the petitioner by the Central Record Office. He was allotted/ confirmed land measuring 25 Kanals and 18 Marlas equivalent to 356 P.I. Units in village Maulapur, Tehsil Kabirwala, District Multan at Khata No.337 of Register R.L.II. Remaining 673 Units were transferred to Mauza Kala, Tehsil and District D.G. Khan.

Nawab petitioner (in W.P. No. 773/11 of 1978), who also hailed from village Urlano Kalan, Tehsil Panipat District Karnal and had left agricultural property there on the eve of partition of Sub‑continent, filed Claim No.399 which was verified for 2268 P.I. Units. He was also confirmed some land equivalent to 769 P.I. Units in village Maulapur, Tehsil Kabirwala, District Multan, at Khata No. 551/185 of Register R.L. II, and the remaining 1499 Units were transferred to Mauza Jhakhar Imam Shah, Tehsil and District D.G. Khan.

3. Petitioner's case for allotment of the land in the aforementioned two villages of District D.G. Khan was pending consideration when a complaint was made by one Muhammad Mobin alleging that the total entitlement of the petitioners was satisfied in village Maulapur, Tehsil Kabirwala and they had no pending claim. Complaint made precisely was that the area abandoned by the petitioners in India was wrongly treated as Pukhta Bigha and consequently their entitlement in terms of P.I. Units was wrongly calculated. On this complaint, A . C . , D . G . Khan referred the matter vide Robkar dated 12‑1‑1978 to the Officer Incharge, Central Record Room, for further verification of the petitioners' entitlement. O. S. D. , Central Record Office, sent a report (Annexure 'G' in W.P. No. 772/11 of 1978) stating that the land in entire District Karnal was treated as Bigha Kham and if the land in village Urlana Kalan, Tehsil Panipat, District Karnal, had been treated as 'Pukhta Bigha', the allotment made on that basis would exceed the true entitlement. Acting on this report received from the Central Record Office, A.C. D.G. Khan, held vide order dated 20‑4‑1978 (copy Annexure 'H' in W.P. No. 772/11 of 1978) that the measure of lands in District Karnal was 'Kham Bigha' and the petitioners' entitlement worked out on that basis already stood satisfied in village Maulapur and, as such, they were not entitled to any more allotment. Petitioners' case for allotment was accordingly consigned.

4. Feeling aggrieved with the aforementioned orders of the A. C. D.G. Khan dated 20‑4‑1978, petitioners filed the present constitutional petitions.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the relevant record. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the lands abandoned by the petitioners in Tehsil Panipat were classified as 'Pacca Bigha' and their entitlement calculated on that basis was accordingly correct. According to the learned counsel, report, submitted by the Central Record Office on the basis whereof the impugned orders were passed by the A.C. did not proceed on correct premises. Learned counsel submits that according to ready‑reckoner (Jantri) published by the Government, lands situate in Tehsil Panipat, District Karnal were shown as 'Pacca Bigha' and length of 'Gatha' shown as 99 inches. He has also referred to para 4.41 of the Land Records Manual which lays down the units of length in various districts. It provides "the unit of length is the Karam or Gatha which varies in length in different districts. The units at present adopted for revenue work are as follows:‑

Length Length

of of

Karam

Gatha Remarks

‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑---------------------------

Bigha Measure Inches Inches

(1) Delhi Gurgaon,

Rohtak, Ludhiana,

Panipat (Karnal) ‑‑‑ 99

(2) Ambala, Karnal *57 *The exact length

(except Panipat). ‑‑‑ is 57.157

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Learned counsel has also referred to para. 4.43 of the Land Records Manual which is reproduced hereuner:‑

"4.43. Further variations.‑‑ The Bigha derived from the 99 inch Gatha is known as the Pakka (or Shahjahani) Bigha. It is exactly three times the size of the Zamindar's of Kacha Bigha, for which the linear unit of 57.125 inch Karam was devised. The Pakka Bigha is 5/8ths and the ordinary Katcha Bigha 5/24ths of an acre. For the revenue records Katcha Bighas are shown. In the district in which the Ghumao measure is used Bigha often means half a Ghumao."

6. Relying on the afore referred record viz. ready‑reckoner (Jantri) and the provisions of the Land Records Manual, it is contended by the learned counsel that the measure of the land abandoned by the petitioners in Tehsil Panipat was Pdcca Bigha; their entitlement as worked out by the authorities in the first instance was correct and they were entitled to the allotment as against their outstanding units. Learned counsel has also produced an uncertified copy of the judgment of this Court dated 10‑3‑1975 passed in Writ Petition No. 15/R of 1974, wherein it was oberved "I have been shown the Jantri according to which the, lands of Panipat can be measured according to Pacca Bigha and not Katcha Bigha."

7. Learned counsel appearing for the Settlement Department has: not been able to controvert the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. He has rather frankly submitted that the Central Record Office while submitting the report does not appear to have referred to the ready‑reckoner (Jantri) published by the Government in the year 1959 according to which land in village Panipat was to be measured as Pacca Bigha.

8. In view of the foregoing discussion, I find considerable force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. It is accordingly held that the entitlement of the petitioners for their lands in village Urlana Kalan, Tehsil Panipat was rightly worked out on the basis of 'Pacca Bigha' and, as such, notwithstanding the allotments obtained by them in village Maulapur, Tehsil Kabirwala, they would be entitled to the allotments in the two villages of D . G .Khan to which their certificates of pending units were sent. In this view of the matter impugned orders passed by the A.C., D.G.Khan are set aside and the case is sent back to the learned Member (Settlement and Rehabilitation) Board of Revenue, Punjab/Chief Settlement Commissioner with the direction that the case of the petitioners for allotment of lands in village Kala and Jhakhar Imam Shah, District D.G.Khan, against their pending units be decided afresh according to law and in the light of what has been held above. Learned Member (S&R)/CSC may decide the case himself or entrust it to the concerned notified officer for passing appropriate orders. With these observations, both the writ petitions are allowed but with no order as to costs.

H.B.T./N‑1/L Petition allowed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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