Find a Lawyer

Writ Petitions Nos. 1628/11 of 1976 and 172/11 of 1977, decided on 7th. October, 1985.

‑‑‑Ss. 10 & 11‑‑Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act (XIV of 1975), S.2‑‑Allotment of excess land‑‑Sale by claimant allottee‑‑Allotment of certain units of land obtained by transferee fraudulently‑‑Sale of excess land by such transferee, held, would be of no legal validity arid would not be conferring any r g t qua such land on purchasers.

‑‑‑S.10 & 11‑‑Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act (XIV of 1975), S.2‑‑Allotment of land‑‑Cancellation of excess units‑ Petitioners claiming to have purchased land in dispute from a person who claimed his title from original allottee‑‑Petitioner basing him claim on bona fide purchaser for value on registered sale deed but Khasra numbers mentioned in such sale deed not corresponding to Khasra numbers given in sale deed executed by said person in his own favour nor same were tallying with Khasra numbers given in sanctioned mutation‑‑Petitioner unable to show on record that he purchased same land which was purportedly allotted to original allottee‑‑Held, petitioner, had no lcous standi to challenge order of Settlement Commissioner cancelling Khata of original claimant allottee‑‑Petition dismissed in circumstances.

Muhammad Hanif Niazi for Petitioner (in W.P. No. 1628/11 of 1976).

S. Iqbal Haider Zaidi fo Petitioners (in W.P No 172/11 of 1977).

Nemo for Respondents (in W.P. No. 172/11 of 1977).

Muhammad Hanif Niazi for Respondent No. 3 (in W.P. No. 172/11 of 1977).

Date of hearing: 7th December, 1985.

This judgment will dispose of two Constitution Petitions bearing No. 1628‑R of 1976 and No. 172/11 of 1977 as in both these petitions one and the same order dated 28‑10‑1976 passed by the learned Settlement Commissioner in respect of the allotments obtained by Alam Ali respondent has been challenged.

2. The relevant facts briefly stated are that Alam Ali displaced person filed claim form No.5566 which was verified for entitlement of 519 units. The verified Fard Haqiat was sent to Chak No.127‑Janoobi, District Sargodha. The entitlement was got transferred to Chak No.78 Shamali, District Sargodha from where 203 units were got transferred to village Bucha Kalan, District Sargodha and the remaining 316 units, it appears, were transferred to Mauza Raja, District Gujranwala. Against 203 units allotment was obtained in village Bucha Kalan on 26‑12‑1960 and against 316 units allotment of 319 units was obtained on 17‑12‑1960. In case 316 units were got transferred to Ldauza Raja then with the allotment of land equivalent to 319 units in the said village, the total entitlement stood satisfied. Later on through sheer manipulation 1800 units were got entered in the R.L.II Register of Mauza Killa Jhanda, District Gujranwala. Out of these units, 200 units were then transferred to village Marithakran, District Gujranwala and allotment was obtained against these units on 8‑3‑1963. The remaining 1600 units were then brought to Mauza Guna‑oor, District Gurjanwala. Out of these 1600 units 400 units were then taken to village Tamuli, District Gujranwala and land was obtained in the said village. Another 225 units were transferred to village Peloo, District Gujranwala and allotment was obtained against these units on 23‑7‑1965. Still another 90 units were got transferred to Mauza Hinda and allotment equivalent to 100 units was obtained on 23‑7‑1965. Again 885 units were transferred to District Attock and it appears that allotment of land against these units were obtained on 6‑7‑1966. Abdul Hamid petitioner in Writ Petition No.1628‑R of 1976 claimed that he purchased the land from Abdul Rashid who in turn had purchased the same from Alam Ali out of the allotment obtained by him in village Raja, District Gujranwala. Noor Muhammad petitioner in writ petition No.172/R of 1977 claimed that the land got allotted by Alam Ali in villages Peloo and Hinda District Gujranwala was purchased by him through two registered sale‑deeds dated 18‑8‑1965. Both the petitioners claimed that they being bona fide purchasers for value are entitled to retain on payment the land purchased by them under the latest policy of the Provincial Government as they since the date of purchase are in possession of the same. Mr. Muhammad Hanif Niazi, Advocate learned counsel for Abdul Hamid further submitted that the allotment in village Raja obtained by Alam Ali was the first allotment against his verified entitlement and as such the same could not have been cancelled because admittedly at that time Alam Ali had unsatisfied units with him. He added that if Alam Ali had obtained excess allotment by fraudulent means then the subsequent allotments should nave been cancelled and not the very first allotment obtained by him and in this manner the rights of the bona fide purchaser for value merit to be safeguarded.

3. Mr. Iqbal Haider Zaidi, Advocate, on the other hand pointed out various features to indicate that Abdul Hamid petitioner is not the purchaser of the land which was permanently allotted in the name of Alam Ali in village Raja. The position taken by Alam Ali, claimant‑allot tee, in the proceedings held on the Mukhbari application was that he did not obtain any allotment in Gujranwala District and that he got land allotted in Sargodha District which was later on sold by him. According to him the remaining unsatisfied units were got transferred to Attock District and allotment of land was obtained against these units in village Kasran. Tehsil Pindi Ghep, District Attock. Learned Settlement Commissioner vide impugned order dated 28‑10‑1976 held that Alam Ali would be entitled to 519 units and the land equivalent to 1063 units got allotted in excess of entitlement was directed to be cancelled.

4. From the resume of the history of allotments given above, it is apparent that Alam Ali was left with no unsatisfied units when 1800 units on transfer were entered in the Register R.L.II of village Killa Jhanda, District Gujranwala, in case of the allotment obtained in village Raja, District Gujranwala is kept in view. Thus, he had no pending, units to be transferred to village Killa Jhanda. In this view of the matter the Khata entered in village Killa Jhanda was bogus and fraudulent. This being the position no units could be transferred to any of the villages, namely, Marithakran, Gunaoor Mauza Peloo, Mauza Hinda or even to District Attock. The allotments obtained in all these villages were thus, fraudulently obtained and were illegal. The sales even if it is accepted that the same were made by Alam Ali will be of no legal validity and will not be conferring any right qua the land in question on the purchasers. It was due to this reason that the learned counsel straightaway conceded and stated that Noor Muhammad petitioner being in possession was entitled to seek purchase of the said land from the Settlement Authorities, under the prevalent scheme. Nothing need be said about this submission. Noor Muhammad petitioner will be free to approach the learned Member, Board of Revenue (Settlement Wing) for the purchase of the land under the scheme said to have been enforced by the Pronvincial Government. The request as and when made shall be dealt with on its own merits and in accordance with law.

5. Coming to the case of Abdul Hamid it is pertinent to note that allotment was made in village Raja District Gujranwala on Khata No.154 of R.L.II Register (Annexure 'D'). The plea of the petitioner that he was bona fide purchaser for value is based on the purchase made by him vide registered sale‑deed (Annexure 'G') from one Abdur Rashid son of Kaley Khan but the Khasra numbers mentioned in this sale deed do not correspond to the Khasra numbers given in the sale deed got executed by aforesaid Abdur Rashid in his own favour. These Khasra numbers given in the sale deed also do not correspond to the Khasra numbers given in the sanctioned mutation (Annexure 'F'). The Khasra numbers given in the sale deed in favour of Abdur Rashid (Annexure I 'E') do not correspond to the Khasra numbers given in Khata No. 154 of Alam Ali. Abdul Hamid petitioner as such has not been able to show on record that he purchased the same land which was purportedly allotted to Alam Ali at Khata No. 154 of R.L.II of village Raja. This being the position he has no locus standi to challenge the impugned order passed by the learned Settlement Commissioner cancelling the Khata of Alam Ali, the original claimant‑allottee. The other features brought out by Mr. Iqbal Haider Zaidi, Advocate to show that the sale obtained by the petitioner was ineffective in law need not be noticed for the reason that the aforesaid finding is sufficient to refuse the relief to Abdul Hamid petitioner in constitutional jurisdiction.

6. For the reasons given above both the petitions are dismissed subject to the observation made with respect to Noor Muhammad petitioner. There will be however, no order as to costs.

M. Y. H. /772/L Petitions 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.