1993 PLP 668 (SCMR)

MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, CJ.‑‑‑This appeal through leave of the Court has arisen out of a land settlement matter. Leave to appeal was granted as follows:‑‑ "The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that they were allotted land vesting in local Muslims instead of the evacuees and when they applied for doing right, they were refused relief on the ground of repeal of evacuee Laws. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the repeal of evacuee laws has nothing to do with the allotment in favour of the petitioners which is regulated by Martial Law Regulation No.9. "The petition is barred by. 10 days. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that if the period spent in obtaining the copies is excluded, the petition is within time. Subject to the question of limitation leave is granted to consider the contention." Learned counsel while narrating the facts has stated that originally about 2,900 Kanals of land was allotted to the appellants' side; and that, it was a case of M.L.R. 9 of 1959. He also stated that the area under allotment was against the entitlement of 2,800 PIUs. Out of the land so allotted subsequently it was discovered that an area of 1,256 Kanals was not evacuee and accordingly, was excluded from the appellants' allotment. This fall short, learned counsel complained, is not being compensated by the respondents' side; namely, the Border Area Committee despite requests on the plea that the appellants' side is not entitled to any more allotment because of the repeal of the Settlement Laws through Act XIV of 1975. Learned counsel relying on a recent judgment of this Court has raised two‑fold contentions; firstly, that M.L.R. 9 of 1959 not having been repealed by Act XIV of 1975 rather it having been continued in force was amended in 1981; therefore, the appellants could not be denied the grant of a right if otherwise available on the plea that the relevant law has been repealed. Consequently, he has contended that all the evacuee lands which were earlier subject‑matter of allotments but are being cancelled and brought back in the compensation pool, have to be transferred to those persons; who have still unsatisfied units available with them. In practical terms there is no force in either of the arguments. Even if it be assumed that the assertions and premises on the basis of which the arguments have been advanced are correct under both the relevant laws; namely, Act XIV of 1975 (Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975) as well as under the Martial Law Regulation there is limit and conditions for obtaining land there under several in number; for example, only so much of land could be allotted to the appellants that the entire land under ail their allotments, if added to the land already held by them, does not exceed a subsistence holding within the meaning of Land Reforms Regulation, 1972, in case of Act XIV of 1975. Similar is the position under Martial Law Regulation 9 of 1959. The relevant provisions in the two Laws read as follows:‑‑ (1) EVACUEE PROPERTY AND ‑ DISPLACED PERSONS LAWS (REPEAL) ACT XIV OF 1975. Section 3(1)(b) of Act XIV of 1975. "In the case of rural properties, by the Board of Revenue of the Province under a scheme to be prepared by the Provincial Government in this behalf: "Provided that agricultural land occupied by any person continuously for four harvests immediately preceding Kharif 1973 shall first be offered for sale to such person unless an order of ejectment has been passed against him in respect of such land: `Provided further that only so much land shall be offered to such person as does not together with land already held by him, exceed a subsistence _ holding with the meaning of the Land Reforms Regulation. 1972 " (2) WEST PAKISTAN BORDER AREA REGULATION 1959 (M L R ND‑.92). Schedule II, Martial Law Regulation No.9 of 1959. (1) All persons allotted land prior to the publication of these regulations, under the Border Scheme and found eligible on scrutiny will be allotted land on the old scale and conditions i.e. 12‑1 2 acres irrigated land or 18 acres non‑irrigated land. (2)The new cases will be allotted land on the revised increased scale as follows:‑‑ (a) Service and ex‑servicemen up to 25 acres of land. "fifty acres of land to an officer (one officer in each Patwar circle). (4) Pre‑independence tenants of evacuee land and Jammu and Kashmir refugees in the Border belt if found eligible will be allotted land on the scale as indicated in (1) above." (Underlining is ours) In the light of the foregoing discussion, as the appellants have already with them much more than 12‑1/2 acres, therefore, this appeal must fail, the C same is dismissed. This decision and the afore discussed dispensation in the field of the Settlement Laws/cases is also in accord with the Rule laid down in a recent judgment of this Court, on equities therein: Barkat Ali v. Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner (PLD 1991 SC 610). M.BA./A‑986/S Appeal dismissed.