1995 PLP 547 (MLD)

(iv) Whether the Central Government is necessary party in this suit? (v) Whether the suit of plaintiff is defective for non‑joinder of necessary party? (vi) Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action and locus standi to bring this suit? (vii) Whether the plaintiffs are owners in possession of suit property and entitled to injunction prayed for? (viii) Relief. After recording of evidence the suit was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 3‑2‑1986 passed by the learned trial Court, on the ground that all the vendees from Hashim etc., the allottees have since not been impleaded and that the suit is hit by the provision of section 42 of Specific Relief Act and that the mutation of ownership sanctioned in favour of the petitioners having been reviewed by revenue authorities, they had no locus standi to file the suit. Aggrieved of this judgment and decree the petitioners filed an appeal which has been dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jhelum vide judgment and decree dated 28‑9‑1988. Findings rendered by the learned trial Court on all the issues have been confirmed and findings rendered against the respondent on Issue No.5 has also been reversed. Hence this Civil Revision has been filed by the plaintiffs.

3. Mr. S.M. Mehboob, Advocate has appeared on behalf of petitioner whereas Kh. Muhammad Yousaf Saraf, Advocate and Mr. Ajmal Kamal Mirza, Advocate have appeared for respondent No.3, none has appeared on behalf of respondent No.1. The sole argument addressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the allotment in favour of the predecessor‑in- interest of the petitioners having not been challenged before any competent forum in any competent proceedings, could not have been ignored merely because the mutations of ownership in their favour have been reviewed by the revenue authorities and hence according to the learned counsel the subsequent allotment in favour of the predecessor‑in‑interest still subsists, the title suit filed by the petitioners could not have been dismissed by the Court below. Learned counsel however has conceded that the respondents have proved on record that the land in question was allotted to respondent No.1 as J & K Refugee in the year 1959 prior to the allotment to the predecessor‑in‑interest of the petitioners.

4. Messrs Kh. Muhammad Yousaf Saraf, and Mr. Ajmal Kamal Mirza, Advocates, learned counsel appearing for the respondents have argued that as the land in dispute was allotted to respondent No.1 as J&K Refugee in the year 1959 therefore it was not available for allotment to the predecessor‑in‑interest of the petitioner, therefore, the same being void ab initio, it was not necessary to challenge the same in any forum and could just to be ignored and this is what the revenue authorities have done, who after realising that the land in question had already been allotted to respondent No.1 and hence was not available for allotment have reviewed the mutations of ownership sanctioned in the name of the petitioners. The exact argument of the learned counsel for the respondent is that the land in question haring been allotted to respondent No.1 was excluded from compensation pool and was not available for allotment, therefore, any order of allotment and subsequent entries on the revenue record made on the basis thereof cannot confer proprietary rights in favour of petitioners nor pre‑emption decree makes the petitioners as owners of the land in question, hence the two Courts below have rightly non‑suited the plaintiffs. 5: I have considered the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. Admitted position of this case is that prior to the allotment in favour of the predecessor‑in‑interest of the petitioners, the land in question had been allotted to respondent No.1 as J & K Refugee. It is further contended that paragraph 4‑A of Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme, 1952 specifically excludes the land allotted on temporary basis to J & K Refugees from the category of the land which can be allotted. Paragraph 4‑A of the scheme reads as under:‑‑‑ "4‑A. The following categories of land will not be allotted under the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme and will remain excluded from the scheme." In case of Mst. Sakina Bibi and another v. Mamla and 2 others PLD 1977 Lah. .202 and Jan Muhammad and others v. Sher Muhammad and another PLD 1979 SC 985 it has been held that the land temporarily allotted to Jammu and Kashmir Refugees is not a part of the compensation pool and shall be deemed to have been sold to Ministry of Kashmir Affairs, therefore, it cannot be allotted to others. Similar view has been taken in the following cases:‑‑‑ (1) Dost Muhammad and others v. Mst. Badal Jan and others 1976 SCMR 112. (2) Nihal Din v. Muhammad Hussain and 3 others 1991 MLD 2167. (3) Ghulam Muhammad v. Ahmad Khan PLD 1991 SC

391. In view of above provisions of the scheme and the law declared in the aforementioned judgments it stands established that the land in question laving been allotted to the respondent No.1 temporarily as Jammu and Kashmir Refugees was not available for allotment to the predecessor‑in- interest of the petitioners and therefore the allotment in their favour being void ab initio did not confer any rights either upon allottees or petitioners who claim title through them. It was also not necessary for respondent No.1 to have challenged this allotment made in favour of the predecessor of the petitioners before the hierarchy provided under the provision of Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 and could just be ignored by all the Courts including the Civil Courts. Resultantly, the petitioners have miserably failed to prove that they have any title in the land in question and as such the two Courts below have rightly non‑suited them. No case has been made out for interference in this civil revision, as substantial justice has been done in view of the law declared in case of Messrs Ghulam Farid Muhammad Latif v. The Central Bank of India Ltd. PLD 1954 Lah.

575. Hence the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. A.A./S‑523/L Revision dismissed.