P L D 1966 (W (PLP)

SARDAR MUHAMMAD IQBAL, J.‑The case of the petitioner is that he filed claim No. 2693 for the land to be allotted to him in Chak No. 351/G. B., Tehsil Toba Tek Singh, District Lyallpur, The claim was verified for 1320 units and was entered in Register R. L. II of the said Chak. He was confirmed 508 units on the 21st of October 1954 in the said Chak and 812 units in Chak No. 359/G. B., Tehsil Toba Tek Singh. The respondent as an informer applied to the Assistant Rehabilitation Commis sioner that the petitioner had wrongly been confirmed 1320 units instead of 837 units which was his actual entitlement. The Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioner by his order dated the 15th of January 1962 directed that as 483 units in Chak No. 359/ G. B. had been allotted to the petitioner in excess, the same should be cancelled. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by the Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner by his order dated the 3rd of February 1962. He then filed a revision petition which was dismissed on the 23rd of June 1964 by the Additional Settlement Commissioner. He observed, "The claim of the petitioner was sent for re‑verification to the C. R. O. and according to it he is now entitled to take 710 units as against 1203 units which were originally verified." He also observed that out of the total area of 1304 units confirmed in his name, 594 units had to be cancelled.

2. Out of the land cancelled from the name of the petitioner 483 units have been allotted to the respondent. The petitioner has now filed this petition under section 21 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act of 1958.

3. The case of the petitioner was that his claim had remained pending for re‑verification before the Central Record Office and the Settlement authorities without waiting for the re‑verification cancelled his allotment which was not warranted by law. We asked for the report from the Central Record Office and also directed that the Officer on Special Duty should personally appear with the report. The report was submitted on the 7th of February 1966. To enable the learned counsel for the petitioner to verify its correctness, an opportunity was given to him on our direction by the Officer Incharge, Central Record Office to examine‑the original records. According to the report, the claim of the petitioner was verified in 1950 for 35 Bighas, 13 Biswas and 9 Biswansi. On re‑verification oh the 17th of July 1960, fresh Farde Haqiats were issued where certain variations were made as to different categories of land but the total entitlement of the petitioner was again found to 35 Bighas, 13 Biswas and 19 Biswansi (There is a clerical mistake in the total. It should have been 37 Bighas, 19 Biswas and 11 Biswansi. This mistake has been removed in the subsequent report submitted today). On a further verification done on the 21st of May 1962 the entitlement of the petitioner was found to be 28 Bighas, 4 Biswas and 1 Biswansi. Again on receipt of the claim form on the 20th of December 1962, Farde Haqiats were issued for 28 Bighas, 3 Biswas and 7 Biswansi. The Officer on Special Duty has categorically stated in his report that this was the correct entitlement of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also checked up the entries and stated before us today that the report was correct and he was entitled only to 28 Bighas, 3 Biswas and 7 Biswansi.

4. There is no element of fraud or misrepresentation in this case. At no time it was alleged against the petitioner that he had obtained any allotment by means of fraud or false representation. It is not the case of the Officer on Special Duty even now that the petitioner had committed any fraud. This is a case of miscalculations by the Central Record Office. The petitioner, therefore, says that his allotment could not be cancelled under section 10 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958. The impugned order is not under section

10. The Chief Settlement Commissioner is competent under section 11 to cancel or terminate any allotment or to, amend or vary terms of any such allotment or lease under the Rehabilitation Scheme. These powers were delegated by the Chief Settlement Commissioner to all the Additional Deputy Commissioners who were acting also as the Additional Settlement Commissioners, vide Notification No. 4501‑63/5361‑R (L), dated the 3rd of September 1963. The petitioner had been allotted more land than what was his entitlement, and only the land in excess of his entitlement has been cancelled. He, therefore, cannot make a legitimate grievance of it because his basic rights, by such cancellation, have not been adversely affected. Area in excess of his entitlement, of course, could be taken away from him at any time on the ground that he did not have any lawful claim for the same. In this view of the matter, the orders passed by the Rehabilitation authorities or the Additional Settlement Commissioner are unexceptionable.

5. It was next argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he was entitled to purchase 594 units cancelled from his name by the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner on the 23rd of June 1964 and relied on memo randum No. 1691‑61/1102, dated the 8th of June 1961, whereby all the Settlement authorities were directed to give effect to the letter of the Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Rehabilitation, dated the 14th of April 1961, which reads as :‑ "I am directed to refer to the correspondence resting with your letter No. 4844‑60/67 167‑R (P), dated the 21st January 1961 an the above subject and to say that in consideration of the amendment made in section 12 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 permitting sale of laud it has been decided that the land allotted to claimants in excess of their entitlement as stated in your letter No. 5883‑59/1767‑R (P), dated the 10th May 1960, may be sold to the allottees @ Rs. 8 per produce index unit and the amount recovered in 36 equal monthly instalments." The case of the petitioner is prima facie covered by the letter of the Central Government referred to in the memorandum of the 8th of June 1962. This memorandum was, however, superseded by another memorandum No. 6358‑62/6428‑R (L), dated the 3rd of October 1962. It reads as :‑ "It has been reported that confusion exists regarding the disposal of land given to the displaced persons in excess of their entitlements as communicated in this office circular No. 1691‑61/1102-R (P), dated the 8th June 1961. (copy enclosed). In this connection it is pointed out that the instructions contained therein relate to the disposal of land allotted and held in excess of entitlements in the districts comprising the old N ‑W. F. P. and Sind regions vide this office circular No. 2550‑59/2017‑R (Pl dated the 14th May 1959 and No. 588362/7162‑R (P), dated the 15th December 1959 (copies enclosed). As such the impression that the land held by the claimants (Displaced Persons) in excess of their entitlements under the West Pakistan Rehabilitation Scheme are to be sold to them at the rate of Rs. 8 per Produce Index Unit payable in 36 equal instalments is incorrect." Thus the instructions contained in the letter of the Ministry of Rehabilitation dated the 14th of April 1961 remained applicable only to the areas of old N.‑W. F. P. and Sind regions. Earlier in respect of those regions a circular was issued by the Government on the 14th of May 1959, and it provided as:‑ The Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, West Pakistan, has ordered that the minimum unit of allotment of evacuee agricultural land under the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme in the districts comprising the former North West Frontier Province should be fixed at four acres. Allotment may be made to the extent of a claimant's verified entitlement and the remaining area upto the minimum unit be permitted to be retained on temporary basis for the present. Such a claimant will have option to purchase the excess area at such rates and in accordance with such terms and conditions as may be specified later on. Till full proprietory rights of the excess area are conferred, the allottee should be considered as a tenant on payment of such rent as may be fixed from time to time by the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner West Pakistan." There was yet another circular letter No: 5883‑59/7162‑R (P), dated the 15th of September 1959 and the same reads as :‑ "In the districts situated in the former Sind and the North West Frontier Province, the minimum unit of allotment was fixed at four acres as a special case in accordance with memorandum No. 2515‑57/2099‑R (P), dated the 22nd April 1957, and memorandum No. 2550‑59/2017‑R (P), dated the 14th May 1959. Such allotments were so made in excess of entitlement of the displaced persons concerned. It is necessary that the question of the final disposal of all such allotments is taken up now and the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner desires that the statements asked for in the memorandum under reference should also include similar allotments, given in excess of entitlement, in the former Sind and North‑West Frontier Provinces in accordance with the letters referred to above.

2. It should please be ensured that the required statement reach the undersigned before the 31st December 1959. (Sd.) S. A. Latif, Deputy Secretary (Rural)."

6. By the reading of the circular letters dated the 14th of May 1959 and the one dated the 15th of December 1959 and of the letter of the Central Government dated the 14th of April 1961 mentioned in circular dated the 8th of June 1961 and then of the 3rd of October 1962, it becomes clear that land held by the claimants displaced persons in excess of their entitlement under the West Pakistan Rehabilitation Scheme can be sold only to the' allottees in former Sind and N.‑W. F. P. regions. The allottees in other parts of West Pakistan have no such right nor have the Settlement Authorities any such power to sell the excess land to such allottees.

7. It was next contended on behalf of the petitioner that he should have been allotted excess land under paragraph 41 of the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme. Under the said paragraph, a refugee may be allotted in addition to what he is entitled an acre or two which remained unallotted in the immediate neighbourhood of land allotted to him. Here the land which has been cancelled from the name of the petitioner is much more than two acres. Paragraph 41, therefore, has no application. There is no merit, in this petition which is accordingly dismissed in limine. S. Q. Petition dismissed in limine.